I seem to recall something on the lines of Elon proposing that a 6m Falcon could be built at Hawthorne. I've looked at google and it's not really far from a port. In fact it seems there's an avenue that goes straight to port. The pictures of the factory seem to show a place big enough for a lot. Obviously they would need bigger tooling, and a sea going transport. But in any information on other limitations?BTW, they could build a 7.2m fairing (if they had the tooling)? I mean, a half is less than 12.5 feet high for road transport, but the with would be impressive (24ft)
Does the port have infrastructure for 8m-wide cargo? -Alex
I seem to recall something on the lines of Elon proposing that a 6m Falcon could be built at Hawthorne. I've looked at google and it's not really far from a port. In fact it seems there's an avenue that goes straight to port.
Quote from: baldusi on 07/31/2011 04:26 amI seem to recall something on the lines of Elon proposing that a 6m Falcon could be built at Hawthorne. I've looked at google and it's not really far from a port. In fact it seems there's an avenue that goes straight to port. There isn't a port near by. Long Beach is the closest and there isn't path to it for that size
Quote from: Jim on 07/31/2011 03:17 pmQuote from: baldusi on 07/31/2011 04:26 amI seem to recall something on the lines of Elon proposing that a 6m Falcon could be built at Hawthorne. I've looked at google and it's not really far from a port. In fact it seems there's an avenue that goes straight to port. There isn't a port near by. Long Beach is the closest and there isn't path to it for that sizeI'm not convinced that's really true. I moved something 4.8m in diameter from a mountain on the North shore of Oahu to Denver.It wouldn't be easy and it would certainly require significant permitting and possibly some night road closures, but having looked at the route, I think it could be done if it had to be.I'm not saying that's necessarily practical or what they are planning, I'm just saying you'd be surprised what size equipment can be moved over the roads if you have the time and money to get it done. There are whole companies that specialize in doing exactly this sort of thing.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 07/31/2011 03:53 pmQuote from: Jim on 07/31/2011 03:17 pmQuote from: baldusi on 07/31/2011 04:26 amI seem to recall something on the lines of Elon proposing that a 6m Falcon could be built at Hawthorne. I've looked at google and it's not really far from a port. In fact it seems there's an avenue that goes straight to port. There isn't a port near by. Long Beach is the closest and there isn't path to it for that sizeI'm not convinced that's really true. I moved something 4.8m in diameter from a mountain on the North shore of Oahu to Denver.It wouldn't be easy and it would certainly require significant permitting and possibly some night road closures, but having looked at the route, I think it could be done if it had to be.I'm not saying that's necessarily practical or what they are planning, I'm just saying you'd be surprised what size equipment can be moved over the roads if you have the time and money to get it done. There are whole companies that specialize in doing exactly this sort of thing.I had the chance to see a couple of times how they move a turbine for a power plant. The truck that carried it was pretty huge (at least the trailer was), it was 2-3 lanes wide. The thing traveled at about 15km/h and had a sizeable escort including police cars. Obviously the road was closed during the move.Definitely possible.
Spacecraft have a hard enough time to go from Redondo Beach to LAX. Money is the key. One time only is one thing, to routinely do it is another.
Quote from: Jim on 07/31/2011 04:24 pmSpacecraft have a hard enough time to go from Redondo Beach to LAX. Money is the key. One time only is one thing, to routinely do it is another.Yep, agreed. Cities are tolerant of doing something a bit ugly once, or a few times, but doing it routinely is another matter and is quite often frowned upon.
Since it doesn't look like its going to see much use in the near term, would it be possible for Elon to "rent" Michoud assembly facility, and just do it there? Could this be done?
Build a big (aluminum?) transport canister and rent a Sky-Crane.
Build a big (aluminum?) transport canister/platform and rent a Sky-Crane or Mi-26.
A stock An-225 has demonstrated carrying a 7.75m wide 58m long Energyia 2nd stage. It weighted some 78tn, but the Anatov could carry 150tn easily. But how much does it costs? Wikipedia says that one transport was Euro 266k in 2008. So let's say that it costs 500k. If we talk about a Falcon X class, the launch cost should be around 150M, so a flight to Stennis for acceptance (or other test stand), plus another flight to KSC that's a 0.7% of the launch cost in transport. But they would keep the old factory, so no relocation cost. And less overhead. I guess airlift is not a bad option for a low rate of flight. It might also happen, that the cost of that flight was less because the An-225 is based of Ukraine, so the first airlift was less. But if it has to come to the US, it might cost more like 1M, in which case putting a new factory close to a port might not be a bad idea, since tooling has to be new, anyways.
Yeah, but where would you take it off from? The runway at the facility is nowhere near long enough. So you'd have to transport over-land anyway.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 08/01/2011 12:03 amYeah, but where would you take it off from? The runway at the facility is nowhere near long enough. So you'd have to transport over-land anyway.That's the reason I was sugjesting the A300-600ST Beluga it can use standard runways, and the stages of a rocket sans engines are not that much heavier than aircraft frames.
Then again, if they do build in Texas they could barge big stages to the Cape.
Quote from: SpacexULA on 08/01/2011 12:14 amQuote from: Lee Jay on 08/01/2011 12:03 amYeah, but where would you take it off from? The runway at the facility is nowhere near long enough. So you'd have to transport over-land anyway.That's the reason I was sugjesting the A300-600ST Beluga it can use standard runways, and the stages of a rocket sans engines are not that much heavier than aircraft frames.It still needs up to 3,000 feet of runway they don't have.
so...how easy would it be to pack up and move to florida? jb
Quote from: jabe on 08/01/2011 12:39 amso...how easy would it be to pack up and move to florida? jbI know your comment was only half serious, but I can see tank, dome and fairing fabrication over 4m moving to FL or TX. But I'm guessing Hawthorne would continue to do Dragon, Merlins, Dracos, etc. Too much talent at Hawthorne to lose half of them with a factory move.
Any chance Michoud will go up for sale/auction (assuming SLS gets the axe)?
I'd like to expand on my previous post, since upon further research this seems really possible. The Mi-26 is available for rent in the US and the pricing is reasonable. It seems it's lift capacity is in the range of what is needed.It probably at least can transport the stage from factory to barge.This pic below really convinced me.
The most sensible place to build Big stages would be next to the launch pad ie Build at the cape. Theres plenty of room, a good work force and minimal transport problems. The engines, avionics etc could be shipped in from hawthorne.
Quote from: krytek on 08/01/2011 08:01 pmI'd like to expand on my previous post, since upon further research this seems really possible. The Mi-26 is available for rent in the US and the pricing is reasonable. It seems it's lift capacity is in the range of what is needed.It probably at least can transport the stage from factory to barge.This pic below really convinced me. No. A 6 m stage would weigh a lot more than 20 tons. I think SpaceX would need more than one Jess Heavy Lifter. Falcon 9 has a first stage fueled to dry weight ratio of just over 20. Scale that up to get a rough idea. Jess Heavy Lifter is apparently waiting on an installment of $100 million. Given the times, unless Elon is willing to invest with Pete Jess and their partner Boeing, the scenario is unlikely. Maybe after Tesla begins to pay out dividends neutral bouyancy airships will be examined. Unless the timing of JHL availability coincides with the need (which is possible) it's more likely that they'll do it somewhere with easy access to a coast.
BTW, the Mi-26 can probably lift up to 25 tonnes.
Quote from: SpacexULA on 08/01/2011 12:14 amThat's the reason I was sugjesting the A300-600ST Beluga it can use standard runways, and the stages of a rocket sans engines are not that much heavier than aircraft frames.It still needs up to 3,000 feet of runway they don't have.
That's the reason I was sugjesting the A300-600ST Beluga it can use standard runways, and the stages of a rocket sans engines are not that much heavier than aircraft frames.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 08/01/2011 12:37 amQuote from: SpacexULA on 08/01/2011 12:14 amThat's the reason I was sugjesting the A300-600ST Beluga it can use standard runways, and the stages of a rocket sans engines are not that much heavier than aircraft frames.It still needs up to 3,000 feet of runway they don't have.http://www.fltplan.com/AirportInformation/HHR.htmRunway Identification: 07/25Length: 4956 ftWidth: 100 ftSurface: CONCRETE-GOOD CONDITIONEdge lights: Medium IntensityAlmost 5,000 feet?Is that enough?
Quote from: go4mars on 08/01/2011 08:27 pmNo. A 6 m stage would weigh a lot more than 20 tons. I think SpaceX would need more than one Jess Heavy Lifter. Falcon 9 has a first stage fueled to dry weight ratio of just over 20. Scale that up to get a rough idea. Jess Heavy Lifter is apparently waiting on an installment of $100 million. Given the times, unless Elon is willing to invest with Pete Jess and their partner Boeing, the scenario is unlikely. Maybe after Tesla begins to pay out dividends neutral bouyancy airships will be examined. Unless the timing of JHL availability coincides with the need (which is possible) it's more likely that they'll do it somewhere with easy access to a coast. Am I doing something wrong?A wet Falcon 9 weights roughly 330,000 kgSo total Falcon 9 dry weight would be around 20,000 kg?
No. A 6 m stage would weigh a lot more than 20 tons. I think SpaceX would need more than one Jess Heavy Lifter. Falcon 9 has a first stage fueled to dry weight ratio of just over 20. Scale that up to get a rough idea. Jess Heavy Lifter is apparently waiting on an installment of $100 million. Given the times, unless Elon is willing to invest with Pete Jess and their partner Boeing, the scenario is unlikely. Maybe after Tesla begins to pay out dividends neutral bouyancy airships will be examined. Unless the timing of JHL availability coincides with the need (which is possible) it's more likely that they'll do it somewhere with easy access to a coast.
Really hard to see SpaceX moving unless two things happen:1) Taxes really start crimping Elon's style
2) Some state offers the candy store to Elon.
I'm not saying that's necessarily practical or what they are planning, I'm just saying you'd be surprised what size equipment can be moved over the roads if you have the time and money to get it done.
I've looked for this for years. I remember reading about it at the time as being one of the largest, if not the largest item ever moved over a US highway.
It's hard to say exactly what he means by "right next to",
But in any information on other limitations?
It's hard to say exactly what he means by "right next to", but I thinks it's safe to say it's not California or Texas.
Quote from: corrodedNut on 08/03/2011 02:50 pmIt's hard to say exactly what he means by "right next to",How about location in the area that would allow easy transport to the pad? There are industrial parks all over the area. Doing it on the range and having to stop production every time ULA decides to run up the flag seems a bit much. I hear Playalinda would have a great view
It might be easier and cheaper to set up a new launch site and an new HLV assembly facility in South Texas
Anyone have any idea if a Merlin 2 size engine can be truck from Hawthorne to Texas and Florida assembled?
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 08/03/2011 06:13 pmAnyone have any idea if a Merlin 2 size engine can be truck from Hawthorne to Texas and Florida assembled?If it's approximated F-1 size then yes, probably.
Garrett Reisman talks about SpaceX infrastructure in Florida, including possible future production facilities:At about 1:22:00 he says: "...if given the opportunity to compete for the super launch, the heavy lift vehicle, we have preliminary plans to build those tanks...right next to our facility at the launch pad"It's hard to say exactly what he means by "right next to", but I thinks it's safe to say it's not California or Texas.Sounds like they want to keep engine production at Hawthorne, but build larger (than current) tanks as close to the pad as possible.These are "preliminary plans", of course.
Quote from: Halidon on 08/03/2011 08:12 pmQuote from: Zed_Noir on 08/03/2011 06:13 pmAnyone have any idea if a Merlin 2 size engine can be truck from Hawthorne to Texas and Florida assembled?If it's approximated F-1 size then yes, probably. If it's about the weight of the F-1, then it's dry mass is about 8.4mt.So you are ok mass-wise. Probably could ship a couple on a single trailer. The problem would be the nozzles. The F-1 nozzel was about 12.2 ft wide, and I think most trailers are only about 8.5 ft wide. But you could probably get a Wide Load permit for the difference. If the nozzle isn't a single cast piece (have not idea how a Merlin 2 nozzle would be made), and if you could like ship two halves to be assembledin TX for testing, and/or in Florida, then they should be able to go in a single standard sized trailer. Or they could go by rail or transport plane. I don't knwo the rail specifications to know if they could be shipped whole on rail or not. If SpaceX could rent or lease a cargo plane that could land at the airfield next to Hawthorne (big if), then they could just fly the engines to TX for testing, then on to Florida for integration.
You can ship stuff that's 4.2m in diameter over the road and 3.8m in diameter over the rails, without going to something extremely unusual (ordinary wide-load permits for roads, etc.).
The 4.2m thing over the road is about height, not width. You can go well over 5m wide.
F-1 without the rear nozzle is small enough to fit in a standard shipping container...
The F-1 was transported on a special trailer, with the engine horizontal and the nozzle extension separated on vertical position (or was slanted? gotta see the F1 book again). That's why I proposed the same system for the Merlin. You can offer a lot better protection for the critical engine, and still move the nozzle extension in one piece.
Do you think a 6 or 8 meter core can make sense? I can't believe Spacex will make another launcher so it's base configuration will not be significantly more powerful than a FH, not enough bang per buck.
So I'm tempted to believe a 6 meter core can be transported by a helicopter.
Quote from: krytek on 08/12/2011 08:19 pmSo I'm tempted to believe a 6 meter core can be transported by a helicopter. An external load on a helicopter would likely not be allowed from Hawthorne because of the dense population and the proximity to LAX.see:http://rgl.faa.gov/regulatory_and_guidance_library/rgfar.nsf/farsbysectlookup/133.45
http://rgl.faa.gov/regulatory_and_guidance_library/rgfar.nsf/farsbysectlookup/133.45
I'm just thinking how incredibly efficient it would be to be able to build, test, integrate and launch all in the same general proximity.My concern is that because they are using legacy NASA locations and infrastructure, they will eventually get trapped into some of the same inefficiencies...
Why not just build out a second production facility in TX once the engine reaches that maturation point and flight rates are assured. Starts to feel very NASA when you have production, testing, integration and launch facilitss spread out across the country...Does not seem as efficient as their vertically integrated model would appear..
Final assembly is still manufacturing and not a launch site task
Better yet...move engine manufacture, and test to TX. Tank manufacture in CA. Final assembly at launch site.
Better yet, move everything to VAFB. Every orbit that really matters can be reached from it (Polar, ISS, GEO, even BEO). The Falcon 9 is undersized even from the cape for most GTO. Most commercial will go on the Heavy anyway, and it has performance to spare.
Quote from: Prober link=topic=26264.msg792684#msg792684 Better yet...move engine manufacture, and test to TX. Tank manufacture in CA. Final assembly at launch site. Better yet, move everything to VAFB. Every orbit that really matters can be reached from it (Polar, ISS, GEO, even BEO). The Falcon 9 is undersized even from the cape for most GTO. Most commercial will go on the Heavy anyway, and it has performance to spare.
So is Decataur
Sorry, your way more knowledgeable than I am so I have to ask. You honestly think the Falcon Heavy will be the more popular product than the Falcon 9 for commercial payloads? I thought most commercial payloads where below 8MT.
I personally like the idea of airships-they're kind of romantic. The hybrid air vehicle shown in the link you posted seems similar to the SkyCat technology developed in the UK. That idea didn't succeed commercially at the time.At the turn of the century there was also Cargo Lifter AG in Germany, but it folded. You could carry large size rocket stages this way avoiding ground bottlenecks, but:a) large cargo lifting airships don't currently existb) it's cheaper to use surface transport.Pity.If SpaceX want to develop a vehicle larger than Falcon H it may be easier to cluster the appropriate number of Falcon 9 cores, sent to the launch site by road, as they are now.
"Crane" type ops - lift of up to 90 tonnes vertically.
Given that 40 of these airships are on order be delivered in 2014 to Canada (I think that it's in support of oil shale extraction ops), I submit that they will exist in the near future commercially. I know that the development prototypes are flying now.The usefulness of one these for SpaceX pre flight operations would depend on it's cost and capability. The units claim to be able to lift 30 tons vertically. Would a 30 ton vertical takeoff limit be sufficient to lift an unfueled but integrated F9 or FH? Does anyone have a ballpark cost for a Hybrid Air Vehicle?More importantly, can you lift full an unfueled F9/FH with sling loading, or would it fold/spindle/mutilate in the process? I've seen information on these which suggests that carrying cargo externally is possible for some distance, but at what range penalty, I don't know. I suspect that carrying the launcher externally is the only possibility. If this is cost effective and has enough lift capability and an F9/FH can survive the trip, a lot more launch sites become available.
Quote from: dlapine on 09/09/2011 05:31 pmGiven that 40 of these airships are on order be delivered in 2014 to Canada (I think that it's in support of oil shale extraction ops), I submit that they will exist in the near future commercially. I know that the development prototypes are flying now.The usefulness of one these for SpaceX pre flight operations would depend on it's cost and capability. The units claim to be able to lift 30 tons vertically. Would a 30 ton vertical takeoff limit be sufficient to lift an unfueled but integrated F9 or FH? Does anyone have a ballpark cost for a Hybrid Air Vehicle?More importantly, can you lift full an unfueled F9/FH with sling loading, or would it fold/spindle/mutilate in the process? I've seen information on these which suggests that carrying cargo externally is possible for some distance, but at what range penalty, I don't know. I suspect that carrying the launcher externally is the only possibility. If this is cost effective and has enough lift capability and an F9/FH can survive the trip, a lot more launch sites become available.F9 first stage best guess is 20-25 tons. That leaves some margin for a carrying platform, so it wouldn't have to be slung directly to the airship.
Don't forget the strong back or support structure to actually carry and protect the first stage.BTW, the page saysQuote"Crane" type ops - lift of up to 90 tonnes vertically.A Falcon Heavy booster has a 0.966 of fuel mass. Of the 480tn for the 16tn to LEO, if we subtract the 16tn of payload, and assume that the whole US is 1/8 of the total weight, we'd reach 406tn first stage fully fueled. If you multiply by 0.004, you'd get 16.24tn. If you assume that the support structure would weight 35% of the whole stage, that would allow for a 4 times heavier first stage. If they can keep the T/W, that could be a 7.2m wide first stage, for example.
The hybrid airships are HAV's model 366, which can carry 50 tonnes if they take off horizontally like an airplane and around 30 tonnes if they take off vertically.
The current F9 1st stage and interstage is 33,000 lbs, dry weight.
VAFB is only 150 miles from Hawthorne
Quote from: Jim on 09/09/2011 07:42 pmVAFB is only 150 miles from HawthorneHmmm, 150 miles for a sling load seems very doable.
This is pretty fanciful, but the LA airspace probably isn't much of a problem during the night.
What might make more sense, is for SpaceX to buy one of these things, and rent it out in California for fighting forest fires (dumping 90 tonnes of water would be useful)
Quote from: kevin-rf on 08/03/2011 04:00 pmQuote from: corrodedNut on 08/03/2011 02:50 pmIt's hard to say exactly what he means by "right next to",How about location in the area that would allow easy transport to the pad? There are industrial parks all over the area. Doing it on the range and having to stop production every time ULA decides to run up the flag seems a bit much. I hear Playalinda would have a great view Yea, I'd probably guess by "right next to the pad", they mean someplace in Florida near that pad, that could be easily transported to the pad.Also, if they build FX cores at some point, those might be launching from KSC rather than LC-40. So maybe a new facility somewhere near the space coast, but so that it could also be barged up to the turning bay by KSC. It could go to the VAB or to LC-40 from there. (I'm not familiar enough with the geography of the area to know if there's a place you could unload a barge closer to LC-40, or if you could truck 6m cores from a nearby facility to LC-40 or KSC.) Also, back in Hawthorne, I'd imagine not only would they continue to do engines and the capsules, but continue the 3.6m cores for F9 and FH at Vandenberg, as well as any launches of them at the Cape. A new facility in Florida would probably just have the hardware to bend metal for the 6m cores. (although, I suppose they could make it so they can do both 3.6m cores and 6m cores in Florida for all Cape launches, and then continue the 3.6m cores for VAFB launches. That'd cut down on their logistics. Engines are pretty easy to truck to they'd probably have all engine production consolidated in Hawthorne.)Texas would actually work to if they had easy coast access, so they could load their cores on a barge and ship them to the Cape. It's a longer float, but probably not prohibitively so.Does anyone know if any of the navy bases at jacksonville would be suitable?
Rather than a sling, could a tri-hull be built, with an upper hull above the rocket and twin hulls on each side and a kevlar cradle to hold the rocket. You could slide the rocket out of the warehouse, right into the airship? The transfer process would be much safer than a sling hanging down from the airship. Fly straight to shore, and up to Vandenberg, or to a ship for delivery to KSC. If practical, it would also be a media spectacle with press you couldn't pay for. Anyhow, certainly not on the critical path for SpaceX at this point.
However judging by comments made earlier on this thread it seems unlikely that this would be allowed in such a built up area.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/09/large-airship-purchase.htmlHere it is folks, a 50 tonne airship by 2014.
Apologies for bringing this thread back to life after so long, but this appears to be the thread with the most relevant and current information on this topic gathered together.If SpaceX were to want to build a 10-meter or 12-meter stage and 13-meter or 15-meter max width spaceship at Hawthorne, could it be transported to Long Beach in a cost-effective manner?Let's assume motivated California development officials, but no big infrastructure additions, like bridges over freeways, etc. Likewise, let's also assume no airships.For instance, could SpaceX use cranes to get these pieces over the two or three bridges/overpasses? Admittedly, this doesn't seem elegant, cheap, or non-annoying to the good residents of LA County to do this a couple of times a year, but I wonder how expensive it actually would be.
Quote from: RedLineTrain on 06/12/2017 03:25 pmApologies for bringing this thread back to life after so long, but this appears to be the thread with the most relevant and current information on this topic gathered together.If SpaceX were to want to build a 10-meter or 12-meter stage and 13-meter or 15-meter max width spaceship at Hawthorne, could it be transported to Long Beach in a cost-effective manner?Let's assume motivated California development officials, but no big infrastructure additions, like bridges over freeways, etc. Likewise, let's also assume no airships.For instance, could SpaceX use cranes to get these pieces over the two or three bridges/overpasses? Admittedly, this doesn't seem elegant, cheap, or non-annoying to the good residents of LA County to do this a couple of times a year, but I wonder how expensive it actually would be.basically, it is impossible.
Quote from: Jim on 06/12/2017 03:49 pmQuote from: RedLineTrain on 06/12/2017 03:25 pmApologies for bringing this thread back to life after so long, but this appears to be the thread with the most relevant and current information on this topic gathered together.If SpaceX were to want to build a 10-meter or 12-meter stage and 13-meter or 15-meter max width spaceship at Hawthorne, could it be transported to Long Beach in a cost-effective manner?Let's assume motivated California development officials, but no big infrastructure additions, like bridges over freeways, etc. Likewise, let's also assume no airships.For instance, could SpaceX use cranes to get these pieces over the two or three bridges/overpasses? Admittedly, this doesn't seem elegant, cheap, or non-annoying to the good residents of LA County to do this a couple of times a year, but I wonder how expensive it actually would be.basically, it is impossible. Thank you, Jim.
maybe go to Marina Del Rey and barge to Long Beach.
After looking at pictures of Endeavor and the External Tank moving through the streets of Los Angeles from Marina del Rey, I'm absolutely convinced that moving a BFR stage and the spaceship from Hawthorne to port would be perfectly doable... if you are willing to shut down LA for three days. http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-101612f.html
Following up on Jim's suggestion, the move to Marina del Rey would be retracing many of the steps of the Shuttle External Tank move detailed here.http://www.latimes.com/visuals/graphics/la-g-space-shuttles-external-tank-comes-to-la-20160226-htmlstory.htmlThe External Tank is 8.4 meters diameter by 47 meters long.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 08/01/2011 12:37 amQuote from: SpacexULA on 08/01/2011 12:14 amQuote from: Lee Jay on 08/01/2011 12:03 amYeah, but where would you take it off from? The runway at the facility is nowhere near long enough. So you'd have to transport over-land anyway.That's the reason I was sugjesting the A300-600ST Beluga it can use standard runways, and the stages of a rocket sans engines are not that much heavier than aircraft frames.It still needs up to 3,000 feet of runway they don't have.The Beluga needs 1386 m for takeoff per http://www.aertecsolutions.com/download/infographics/Infographic-AirbusBeluga-ENG.pdfHawthorne Muni has 1511 m of runway per https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1706/05120AD.PDF
Quote from: envy887 on 06/12/2017 04:37 pmQuote from: Lee Jay on 08/01/2011 12:37 amQuote from: SpacexULA on 08/01/2011 12:14 amQuote from: Lee Jay on 08/01/2011 12:03 amYeah, but where would you take it off from? The runway at the facility is nowhere near long enough. So you'd have to transport over-land anyway.That's the reason I was sugjesting the A300-600ST Beluga it can use standard runways, and the stages of a rocket sans engines are not that much heavier than aircraft frames.It still needs up to 3,000 feet of runway they don't have.The Beluga needs 1386 m for takeoff per http://www.aertecsolutions.com/download/infographics/Infographic-AirbusBeluga-ENG.pdfHawthorne Muni has 1511 m of runway per https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1706/05120AD.PDFI wonder what this thingy's take off distance would be while carrying a big cylindrical thing. - Ed Kyle
Is there a way to take it down the 105 and use the LA River basin to get it to Long Beach? What are the bridge clearances along that stretch?
I guess I'm missing something here (Is this OT??) I thought the plan was to build and launch from south Texas, or is this thread an exercise in speculation? I know it has just been 'reactivated', but thought they were headed this way (to south Texas) back in 2011.
Quote from: HankinNM on 06/12/2017 09:55 pm I guess I'm missing something here (Is this OT??) I thought the plan was to build and launch from south Texas, or is this thread an exercise in speculation? I know it has just been 'reactivated', but thought they were headed this way (to south Texas) back in 2011.This thread is an exercise in speculation, but SpaceX has never specified where they are going to build the bigger stages. It's not really out of the question for initial production to happen in LA.
Quote from: gongora on 06/13/2017 01:46 pmQuote from: HankinNM on 06/12/2017 09:55 pm I guess I'm missing something here (Is this OT??) I thought the plan was to build and launch from south Texas, or is this thread an exercise in speculation? I know it has just been 'reactivated', but thought they were headed this way (to south Texas) back in 2011.This thread is an exercise in speculation, but SpaceX has never specified where they are going to build the bigger stages. It's not really out of the question for initial production to happen in LA.I don't foresee them getting very far without dramatic developments and innovation with segmented carbon fiber pressure vessels, which sounds rather unlikely.
Quote from: RotoSequence on 06/13/2017 01:51 pmQuote from: gongora on 06/13/2017 01:46 pmQuote from: HankinNM on 06/12/2017 09:55 pm I guess I'm missing something here (Is this OT??) I thought the plan was to build and launch from south Texas, or is this thread an exercise in speculation? I know it has just been 'reactivated', but thought they were headed this way (to south Texas) back in 2011.This thread is an exercise in speculation, but SpaceX has never specified where they are going to build the bigger stages. It's not really out of the question for initial production to happen in LA.I don't foresee them getting very far without dramatic developments and innovation with segmented carbon fiber pressure vessels, which sounds rather unlikely.I'm not sure where you're coming from in any part of this post.They already have a 10m cf tank test item that has been pressure tested. What's the massive and unlikely leap left that you think they need?Source: http://tinyurl.com/ya4e7p3wEdit: tiny url
I'm not sure where you're coming from in any part of this post.They already have a 10m cf tank test item that has been pressure tested. What's the massive and unlikely leap left that you think they need?Source: http://tinyurl.com/ya4e7p3wEdit: tiny url
[...]that tank is in pieces as of a few months ago...https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/5ul1du/remains_of_the_its_composite_tank_in_anacortes_wa/
Quote from: S.Paulissen on 06/13/2017 05:20 pmI'm not sure where you're coming from in any part of this post.They already have a 10m cf tank test item that has been pressure tested. What's the massive and unlikely leap left that you think they need?Source: http://tinyurl.com/ya4e7p3wEdit: tiny urlAs tvg98 said: Quote from: tvg98 on 06/13/2017 05:29 pm[...]that tank is in pieces as of a few months ago...https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/5ul1du/remains_of_the_its_composite_tank_in_anacortes_wa/The unannounced destruction of their first structural test article suggests that the ITS' composite tanks will require some significant developments in multi-part composite structure fabrication to meet design strength, or the use of a one piece tank.
...Didn't SpaceX say they were going to build ITS at the launch site? They could still build the engines and some other at Hawthorne.
As I was driving yesterday down the 405 yesterday to the in-law's house for 4th of July. I couldn't help but notice the former S-II assembly building in Seal Beach. What is the conditions of the Former North American (Now Boeing) S-II assembly facilities in Seal Beach?
Looking at the factory floor now it's not that hard to imagine cores twice as wide. i.e., 7.5 m diameter, but what about length? Twice as long? Doesn't seem like there's room... maybe they'll need to extend the hangar?
Even then, I find it hard to imagine anything that big going south down the 110 to the Port of LA.
Is somebody ambitious enough to take a map of the area and highlight all the buildings owned by SpaceX?
Quote from: deruch on 06/18/2017 11:50 pmIs there any chance that one of the more graphically gifted NSFers would be willing to create a map of SpaceX's Hawthorne footprint similar to what DaveG has done for Boca Chica properties in TX? Incidentally, @Raul here at NSF has put together a Google Maps of SpaceX facilities. It has the two facilities that I mentioned above, so it's probably pretty comprehensive.https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1wvgFIPuOmI8da9EIB88tHo9vamo&hl
Is there any chance that one of the more graphically gifted NSFers would be willing to create a map of SpaceX's Hawthorne footprint similar to what DaveG has done for Boca Chica properties in TX?
LA airport where StratoLaunch could land.
Quote from: RotoSequence on 06/13/2017 05:46 pmQuote from: S.Paulissen on 06/13/2017 05:20 pmI'm not sure where you're coming from in any part of this post.They already have a 10m cf tank test item that has been pressure tested. What's the massive and unlikely leap left that you think they need?Source: http://tinyurl.com/ya4e7p3wEdit: tiny urlAs tvg98 said: Quote from: tvg98 on 06/13/2017 05:29 pm[...]that tank is in pieces as of a few months ago...https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/5ul1du/remains_of_the_its_composite_tank_in_anacortes_wa/The unannounced destruction of their first structural test article suggests that the ITS' composite tanks will require some significant developments in multi-part composite structure fabrication to meet design strength, or the use of a one piece tank.Just dredging this up after finally getting some insight into the tank failure.They most certainly did successfully make and test this tank.