NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: peter-b on 10/23/2011 06:28 pm
-
Sorry if this has been asked before, but...
What are the relative (dis)advantages of horizontal and vertical payload integration?
Why does Soyuz in Guiana have its payloads integrated vertical, while Soyuz at Baikonur have its payloads integrated horizontally?
Why is (IIRC) the DoD requiring vertical integration for all of its payloads?
Thanks for any info you can provide. :-)
-
Payloads aren't cantilevered while fueled with vertical. Vertical provides 360 access at the pad
-
Sorry if this has been asked before, but...
What are the relative (dis)advantages of horizontal and vertical payload integration?
Why does Soyuz in Guiana have its payloads integrated vertical, while Soyuz at Baikonur have its payloads integrated horizontally?
Why is (IIRC) the DoD requiring vertical integration for all of its payloads?
Thanks for any info you can provide. :-)
I suspect that one advantage of vertical payload integration is that launch vehicle processing can be more isolated from the payload, and therefore simplified. With horizontal integration, the rocket has to be integrated without payload, then rolled to the pad for propellant testing, then rolled back to the hanger for payload integration, then rolled *back* to the pad to be reconnected yet again to the propellant and electrical umbilicals, etc.. With vertical integration, the rocket never leaves the pad, or launch platform, between dress rehearsal, payload stacking, and launch.
- Ed Kyle
-
Vertical provides 360 access at the pad
SpaceX obtain 360 degree access to their launcher in the horizontal integration facility by simply providing a motorised rotator mechanism on the stand...
Are there any advantages to horizontal integration? I guess that the buildings are cheaper and you don't have all the safety faff that comes with working at height...
-
... With horizontal integration, the rocket has to be integrated without payload, then rolled to the pad for propellant testing, then rolled back to the hanger for payload integration, then rolled *back* to the pad to be reconnected yet again to the propellant and electrical umbilicals, etc...
Is that typical in practice? Looking at, e.g., Sooyuz, the first time the LV sees the pad appears to be after everything is integrated: (1a) integrate payload + upper stage; (1b) integrate 1st + 2nd + 3rd stage; (2) integrate 1a + 1b; (3) rollout complete stack to pad.
edit: correction, 3rd stage vs. upper stage.
-
Vertical provides 360 access at the pad
SpaceX obtain 360 degree access to their launcher in the horizontal integration facility by simply providing a motorised rotator mechanism on the stand...
I was talking spacecraft access.
But anyways, can't rotate the vehicle when attached to the launcher
-
I was talking spacecraft access.
So was I...
But anyways, can't rotate the vehicle when attached to the launcher
Why not? Do you mean that you can't rotate the vehicle when attached to the strongback? Because I guess that's true.
-
Are there any advantages to horizontal integration? I guess that the buildings are cheaper and you don't have all the safety faff that comes with working at height...
Also potentially less time spent occupying the pad, but that (and benefit) depends on other factors (e.g., launch rate, integration caobility/throughput, etc.). As you suggiest, at present I'd guess the primary benefit is cheaper facilities.
The rationale given by Arianespace (http://www.arianespace.com/news-mission-update/2011/851.asp):
The vertical integration of Soyuz payloads is the primary difference in the Spaceport's launch vehicle processing as compared to the long-operating Soyuz facilities at Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan and Plesetsk Cosmodrome in Russia. This vertical procedure enables payloads to be installed as traditionally performed with Western launch systems – and is a change from the horizontal integration utilized at the Baikonur and Plesetsk Cosmodromes.
So presumably there are enough payloads which require vertical integration to justify the additional facilities cost. Or maybe since existing Arianespace processes/payloads are based on vertical ("as traditionally performed"), it was more effective to continue/extend that with Soyuz.
-
Are there any advantages to horizontal integration? I guess that the buildings are cheaper and you don't have all the safety faff that comes with working at height...
If your LV is integrated horizontally, then substantial infrastructure is required for vertical payload integration, as we see with Soyuz at CSG.
If your LV already has significant elements that are integrated vertically, then the additional infrastructure required for vertical payload integration is much less significant. Large solids pretty much rule out horizontal LV integration.
-
If your LV is integrated horizontally, then substantial infrastructure is required for vertical payload integration, as we see with Soyuz at CSG.
If your LV already has significant elements that are integrated vertically, then the additional infrastructure required for vertical payload integration is much less significant. Large solids pretty much rule out horizontal LV integration.
Was trying to think of a way to express that, or at least categorize the variations, and what came to mind is the following matrix. No claim as to its utility; corrections appreciated. Thanks.
Columns represent LV assembly/integration method. Rows represent payload-to-LV integration method. Intersection represents whether a given combination is used. V = vertical; H = horizontal.
| PL+LV \ LV | H (off-pad) | V off-pad | V on-pad |
| H (off-pad) | Y(1) | N | N |
| V off-pad | ? | Y(3) | N |
| V on-pad | Y(2) | ? | N(4) |
Notes:
1 - Most (all?) Russian, Falcon 9, Taurus II, …
2 - D-IV, Souyz CSG
3 - Atlas V, VAB (Saturn, Shuttle)
4 - At one time, none today?
-
I was talking spacecraft access.
So was I...
But anyways, can't rotate the vehicle when attached to the launcher
Why not? Do you mean that you can't rotate the vehicle when attached to the strongback? Because I guess that's true.
Not just the strongback but the holddown system. And that is the time spacecraft want to do final closeouts. This is also while they are powered up and that has to be through the umbilical.
-
... With horizontal integration, the rocket has to be integrated without payload, then rolled to the pad for propellant testing, then rolled back to the hanger for payload integration, then rolled *back* to the pad to be reconnected yet again to the propellant and electrical umbilicals, etc...
Is that typical in practice? Looking at, e.g., Sooyuz, the first time the LV sees the pad appears to be after everything is integrated: (1a) integrate payload + upper stage; (1b) integrate 1st + 2nd + 3rd stage; (2) integrate 1a + 1b; (3) rollout complete stack to pad.
edit: correction, 3rd stage vs. upper stage.
Wet dress rehearsals are, or have been, typical in western practice (i.e. at Kourou, Cape Canaveral, and Tanegashima). Soyuz went through such a test at Kourou prior to spacecraft mating.
At Baikonur, the Soyuz launchers undergo an integrated test on the pad two days prior to launch. I'm not sure if that includes propellant loading. I doubt very much that the hardware doesn't see its first cryo loading until launch day.
- Ed Kyle
-
At Baikonur, the Soyuz launchers undergo an integrated test on the pad two days prior to launch. I'm not sure if that includes propellant loading. I doubt very much that the hardware doesn't see its first cryo loading until launch day.
The Soyuz launch campaign flowchart shows 3 days total pad time (after LV assembly and payload integration for entire stack) before launch, and with no other pad time. There could be a separate LV tankinkg/checkout on the pad, altho there's no indication of such in their flowcharts.
If you have a reasonable level of confidence in the LV (which presumably they do?), would there be a good reason for assembling the LV ih the HIF, hauling it out to the pad, tanking/de-tanking/checkout, haluing it back to the HIF, integrating with payload, then hauling it all back out to the pad?
Anyone with first-hand experience care to comment? Thanks.
-
Suppose you have an all-liquid launch vehicle suitable for horizontal integration and intended to carry both unmanned and manned payloads. Being as the launch complex would need to provide a means for passengers to board the payload atop of the vertical stack on the launch pad, does it make any sense to integrate the payload horizontally, or does it make much more sense to incorporate vertical payload integration capability into the same pad facility used for passenger ingress? Further suppose that your company is well-known for maximizing commonality...
You see what I'm getting at. I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX moves to vertical payload integration at some point. The combination of horizontal off-pad LV integration and vertical on-pad payload integration seems to be ideal from an operational standpoint, and the higher capital investment is a lot easier to justify if you want to support manned launches from the same pad.
-
Suppose you have an all-liquid launch vehicle suitable for horizontal integration and intended to carry both unmanned and manned payloads. Being as the launch complex would need to provide a means for passengers to board the payload atop of the vertical stack on the launch pad, does it make any sense to integrate the payload horizontally, or does it make much more sense to incorporate vertical payload integration capability into the same pad facility used for passenger ingress? Further suppose that your company is well-known for maximizing commonality...
You see what I'm getting at. I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX moves to vertical payload integration at some point. The combination of horizontal off-pad LV integration and vertical on-pad payload integration seems to be ideal from an operational standpoint, and the higher capital investment is a lot easier to justify if you want to support manned launches from the same pad.
Given the added costs of vertical integration it really doesn't seem worth it just to have commonality with a crew launch tower. Plus SpaceX keeps going on about how they want to decrease the time from hanger to pad so I don't see them moving towards the route you suggested.
-
Wet dress rehearsals are, or have been, typical in western practice (i.e. at Kourou, Cape Canaveral, and Tanegashima). Soyuz went through such a test at Kourou prior to spacecraft mating.
Actually.. no it didn't. VS01 did not perform a wet dress rehearsel. The very first time fuels and oxidizers were loaded into any Soyuz launcher (minus the Fregat upper stage) at CSG was 20 october, the day of the botched first launch attempt of VS01
Earlier this year, in april, a different Soyuz launcher was rolled out to the launchpad for functional and fit checks. They did not load fuels and oxidizer into that one. Arianespace did perform a virtual countdown and lift-off. But, without tanking, that's considered to be a dry dress rehearsal. See this Arianespace update (http://www.arianespace.com/news-soyuz-vega/2011/2011_5_3_soyuz_update.asp) and this one (http://www.arianespace.com/news-soyuz-vega/2011/2011_5_5_soyuz_update.asp) for more information
At Baikonur, the Soyuz launchers undergo an integrated test on the pad two days prior to launch. I'm not sure if that includes propellant loading. I doubt very much that the hardware doesn't see its first cryo loading until launch day.
- Ed Kyle
As I mentioned above: the first three stages of the Soyuz launcher generally do not see their first loads of fuel and oxidizers until the day of the first launch attempt.
-
One advantage of integrating the launch vehicle and rolling it out to the pad horizontally is that it minimises the time on the pad, allowing for a rapid re-use of launch pads.
This is how the high launch rate of >80 launches a year was maintained in the Soviet era.
-
A notable example of that being the launch of Vostok 3 and Vostok 4 a day apart in 1962.
-
One advantage of integrating the launch vehicle and rolling it out to the pad horizontally is that it minimises the time on the pad, allowing for a rapid re-use of launch pads.
Why does this minimise time on the pad?
-
Are spacecraft typically designed to be able to be integrated both horizontally and vertically, or just one of the two?
-
One advantage of integrating the launch vehicle and rolling it out to the pad horizontally is that it minimises the time on the pad, allowing for a rapid re-use of launch pads.
This is how the high launch rate of >80 launches a year was maintained in the Soviet era.
That has nothing to do with horizontal integration.
Altas V could do the same thing with multiple VIFs which would be the same as the Soyuz MIK were they would have multiple vehicles integrated.
-
Are spacecraft typically designed to be able to be integrated both horizontally and vertically, or just one of the two?
Some commercial comsats can go both ways.
-
Given the added costs of vertical integration it really doesn't seem worth it just to have commonality with a crew launch tower. Plus SpaceX keeps going on about how they want to decrease the time from hanger to pad so I don't see them moving towards the route you suggested.
Then how about stranding people in a vertical vehicle? That just negates your premise. Spacex isn't going to load people horizontally, and then go vertical.
-
Have there ever been attempts to minimise the cost of vertical integration by building launchers with low fineness ratios? That would trade facility costs against higher drag losses. I've seen RLV concepts that looked very squat, but that may have had more to do with wanting spherical tanks. Then again, if you go for a pop-up stage then drag losses might be less of an issue as you'd be going straight up and at a lower velocity than typical launches.
-
As I mentioned above: the first three stages of the Soyuz launcher generally do not see their first loads of fuel and oxidizers until the day of the first launch attempt.
O.K., but Ariane 5, Atlas, Delta, Falcon, etc. all do WDR testing. If Atlas, say, went with horizontal integration it, like Falcon 9, would still do WDR, which would require rollout/rollback, etc.
Past decade failures of Zenit and Soyuz make me wonder if WDR might not be worthy of consideration.
- Ed Kyle
-
Given the added costs of vertical integration it really doesn't seem worth it just to have commonality with a crew launch tower. Plus SpaceX keeps going on about how they want to decrease the time from hanger to pad so I don't see them moving towards the route you suggested.
Then how about stranding people in a vertical vehicle? That just negates your premise. Spacex isn't going to load people horizontally, and then go vertical.
No one said the crew would be loaded horizontally. SpaceX could use a separate crew launch tower like what is shown in the ULA screen grab below.
-
Suppose you have an all-liquid launch vehicle suitable for horizontal integration and intended to carry both unmanned and manned payloads. Being as the launch complex would need to provide a means for passengers to board the payload atop of the vertical stack on the launch pad, does it make any sense to integrate the payload horizontally, or does it make much more sense to incorporate vertical payload integration capability into the same pad facility used for passenger ingress? Further suppose that your company is well-known for maximizing commonality...
You see what I'm getting at. I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX moves to vertical payload integration at some point. The combination of horizontal off-pad LV integration and vertical on-pad payload integration seems to be ideal from an operational standpoint, and the higher capital investment is a lot easier to justify if you want to support manned launches from the same pad.
Given the added costs of vertical integration it really doesn't seem worth it just to have commonality with a crew launch tower. Plus SpaceX keeps going on about how they want to decrease the time from hanger to pad so I don't see them moving towards the route you suggested.
I assume the FH will be vertical, which means all west-coast F9 launches will probably be vertical, since they wouldn't do both horizontal and vertical at the same facility.
-
Suppose you have an all-liquid launch vehicle suitable for horizontal integration and intended to carry both unmanned and manned payloads. Being as the launch complex would need to provide a means for passengers to board the payload atop of the vertical stack on the launch pad, does it make any sense to integrate the payload horizontally, or does it make much more sense to incorporate vertical payload integration capability into the same pad facility used for passenger ingress? Further suppose that your company is well-known for maximizing commonality...
You see what I'm getting at. I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX moves to vertical payload integration at some point. The combination of horizontal off-pad LV integration and vertical on-pad payload integration seems to be ideal from an operational standpoint, and the higher capital investment is a lot easier to justify if you want to support manned launches from the same pad.
Given the added costs of vertical integration it really doesn't seem worth it just to have commonality with a crew launch tower. Plus SpaceX keeps going on about how they want to decrease the time from hanger to pad so I don't see them moving towards the route you suggested.
I assume the FH will be vertical, which means all west-coast F9 launches will probably be vertical, since they wouldn't do both horizontal and vertical at the same facility.
Why are you assuming that when the promotional video inferred that it would be horizontal.
-
Suppose you have an all-liquid launch vehicle suitable for horizontal integration and intended to carry both unmanned and manned payloads. Being as the launch complex would need to provide a means for passengers to board the payload atop of the vertical stack on the launch pad, does it make any sense to integrate the payload horizontally, or does it make much more sense to incorporate vertical payload integration capability into the same pad facility used for passenger ingress? Further suppose that your company is well-known for maximizing commonality...
You see what I'm getting at. I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX moves to vertical payload integration at some point. The combination of horizontal off-pad LV integration and vertical on-pad payload integration seems to be ideal from an operational standpoint, and the higher capital investment is a lot easier to justify if you want to support manned launches from the same pad.
Given the added costs of vertical integration it really doesn't seem worth it just to have commonality with a crew launch tower. Plus SpaceX keeps going on about how they want to decrease the time from hanger to pad so I don't see them moving towards the route you suggested.
I assume the FH will be vertical, which means all west-coast F9 launches will probably be vertical, since they wouldn't do both horizontal and vertical at the same facility.
Why are you assuming that when the promotional video inferred that it would be horizontal.
Because I assume 3 cores would have the same integration issues as a liquid core with 2 solids. Just too much weight to lift to vertical all at one time. I suppose you could take each core out to the pad horizontally, then attach them vertically once at the pad. It still requires the "final" integration to be vertical. There is no quick-rollout with the FH.
-
I assume the FH will be vertical, which means all west-coast F9 launches will probably be vertical, since they wouldn't do both horizontal and vertical at the same facility.
Why are you assuming that when the promotional video inferred that it would be horizontal.
Because I assume 3 cores would have the same integration issues as a liquid core with 2 solids. Just too much weight to lift to vertical all at one time. I suppose you could take each core out to the pad horizontally, then attach them vertically once at the pad. It still requires the "final" integration to be vertical. There is no quick-rollout with the FH.
Doesn't Delta IV Heavy goes from horizontal to vertical with all 3 cores bolted together (not sure if that includes the upper stage); IIRC it takes ~2hrs to rollout from HIF and erect?
edit: question, not statement.
-
Because I assume 3 cores would have the same integration issues as a liquid core with 2 solids. Just too much weight to lift to vertical all at one time. I suppose you could take each core out to the pad horizontally, then attach them vertically once at the pad. It still requires the "final" integration to be vertical. There is no quick-rollout with the FH.
Don't forget that FH is integrated and erected unfueled, whereas solids are not.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see what SpaceX do at VAFB, won't we? :-)
-
I assume the FH will be vertical, which means all west-coast F9 launches will probably be vertical, since they wouldn't do both horizontal and vertical at the same facility.
Why are you assuming that when the promotional video inferred that it would be horizontal.
Because I assume 3 cores would have the same integration issues as a liquid core with 2 solids. Just too much weight to lift to vertical all at one time. I suppose you could take each core out to the pad horizontally, then attach them vertically once at the pad. It still requires the "final" integration to be vertical. There is no quick-rollout with the FH.
Doesn't Delta IV Heavy goes from horizontal to vertical with all 3 cores bolted together (not sure if that includes the upper stage); IIRC it takes ~2hrs to rollout from HIF and erect?
edit: question, not statement.
yes
-
Because I assume 3 cores would have the same integration issues as a liquid core with 2 solids. Just too much weight to lift to vertical all at one time.
Nope. Empty liquid boosters are light. The Russians did both N1 and Energia/Buran horizontally.
-
Empty liquid boosters are light. The Russians did both N1 and Energia/Buran horizontally.
Yes, but they had to create a substantial infrastructure to do so - the massive rail-mobile "grasshopper" transporter/erector, for example.
The footprint would be smaller if the rocket were erected vertically at the pad, which brings an important distinction. There is horizontal and vertical, but there is also mobile and static. Horizontal implies the need for mobility. Vertical offers the option to stack and launch all in one place.
- Ed Kyle
-
Sorry if this has been asked before, but [...]
Why is (IIRC) the DoD requiring vertical integration for all of its payloads?
Sorry if this is overly pedantic, but ...
I haven't seen evidence that all DoD payloads require vertical integration. But apparently some do. So the requirement DoD places on e.g. EELV systems is that they must be capable of integrating payloads vertically. Given that vertical integration is required for some payloads, EELV system designers then chose for simplicity to integrate all payloads vertically.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the easy answers to why vertical integration is required by some payloads are that: (a) it allows leaner payload designs, thus allowing more functionality on orbit for a given launch mass; (b) it reduces the payload design, development and test efforts, thus reducing payload cost.
-
The Russians use all horizontal integration because that way they don't need payload integration capability at the pad or vertical transportation capability for the LV, which are the big cost savers.
But the payloads have to be designed for that. If you need to support payloads that are not, then you need vertical integration and once you've got that, you might as well always use it, after all, your payload always has to support vertical loads or it won't reach orbit alive.
The payloads are designed to support launch accelerations. A payload will see 3+g in the vertical axis, but only 1g on the horizontal axis during processing.
Are payloads really built such that they can take 3g compression while vertical but will crumple under their own weight if turned horizontal? Seems too flimsy to take the launch stresses. Why would any payload designed for 3g launch and zero g operation have an issue being on its side?
Is it more related to how the payload sits in the fairing?
-
The payloads are designed to support launch accelerations. A payload will see 3+g in the vertical access, but only 1g horizontal during processing.
Are payloads really built such that they can take 3g compression while vertical but will crumple under their own weight if turned horizontal? Seems too flimsy to take the launch stresses. Why would any payload designed for 3g launch and zero g operation have an issue being on its side?
Is it more related to how the payload sits in the fairing?
There are transport loads in addition to flight loads, that include shock events
-
As I mentioned above: the first three stages of the Soyuz launcher generally do not see their first loads of fuel and oxidizers until the day of the first launch attempt.
O.K., but Ariane 5, Atlas, Delta, Falcon, etc. all do WDR testing. If Atlas, say, went with horizontal integration it, like Falcon 9, would still do WDR, which would require rollout/rollback, etc.
Past decade failures of Zenit and Soyuz make me wonder if WDR might not be worthy of consideration.
- Ed Kyle
you can add the Naro launch failure. It passed all the tests the day before, however it wasn't a WDR so they didn't load fuel and catch a broken helium injector.
I heard this in the broadcast last night. The Koreans said that since the Naro is worked on horizontal, can't be fixed at the pad. The Naro must be taken back to the building to be worked on.
this thread came at a good time. I read it then saw the problems last night.
-
As I mentioned above: the first three stages of the Soyuz launcher generally do not see their first loads of fuel and oxidizers until the day of the first launch attempt.
O.K., but Ariane 5, Atlas, Delta, Falcon, etc. all do WDR testing. If Atlas, say, went with horizontal integration it, like Falcon 9, would still do WDR, which would require rollout/rollback, etc.
Past decade failures of Zenit and Soyuz make me wonder if WDR might not be worthy of consideration.
- Ed Kyle
Ariane 5 doesn't do WDR during nominal campaign.
-
"Air Force Implementation of the NECG:
New entrants will be required to integrate payloads with the launch vehicle upright, or vertical, and the payload attached to the vehicle from above, as NSS payloads are currently designed to be vertically integrated."
http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652037.pdf
To justify a billion dollars worth of pad infrastructure, there must be a damn good reason why a payload can't be turned on it's side at 1g when it can launch in 3g and sit in 0g. So what is it?
Or, to ask the question another way, if FH really can toss 30-50MT into orbit, why can't the payload be built a little heavier, a little more rugged? Probably easier to build anyway. Is mass the only issue preventing easy horizontal integration?
-
Either way we'll find out. The recently released designs for the Vandenberg SpaceX launch facility are for horizontal integration for Falcon Heavy (and presumably Faclon 9 v1.1 as well). So I expect they're going to fight the DoD on the issue, as crazy as that sounds.
-
Either way we'll find out. The recently released designs for the Vandenberg SpaceX launch facility are for horizontal integration for Falcon Heavy (and presumably Faclon 9 v1.1 as well). So I expect they're going to fight the DoD on the issue, as crazy as that sounds.
There is no fighting. They either comply or don't get missions.
-
1. To justify a billion dollars worth of pad infrastructure, there must be a damn good reason why a payload can't be turned on it's side at 1g when it can launch in 3g and sit in 0g. So what is it?
2. Or, to ask the question another way, if FH really can toss 30-50MT into orbit, why can't the payload be built a little heavier, a little more rugged? Probably easier to build anyway. Is mass the only issue preventing easy horizontal integration?
1. There is a damn good reason.
2. Why should they start designing a payload for an unproven vehicle? and why design a new one when the existing one works good?
And no mass is not the only issue. Ruggedizing won't help and it is not a given that it would be easier to build.
The FH uses a 5m fairing so there isn't much more room to add more mass.
-
Are payloads really built such that they can take 3g compression while vertical but will crumple under their own weight if turned horizontal? Seems too flimsy to take the launch stresses. Why would any payload designed for 3g launch and zero g operation have an issue being on its side?
Is it more related to how the payload sits in the fairing?
it is 5-6 g in compression. Cantilever loads is the reason for issue for being on the side.
Juno could only use the rotation fixture when it was unfueled. Once propellant was loaded, it could only be in the vertical configuration.
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/imageviewer.cfm?mediaid=53923&mr=m&w=515&h=757&fn=2011-4633&sn=KSC-2011-4633
-
1. To justify a billion dollars worth of pad infrastructure, there must be a damn good reason why a payload can't be turned on it's side at 1g when it can launch in 3g and sit in 0g. So what is it?
2. Or, to ask the question another way, if FH really can toss 30-50MT into orbit, why can't the payload be built a little heavier, a little more rugged? Probably easier to build anyway. Is mass the only issue preventing easy horizontal integration?
1. There is a damn good reason.
2. Why should they start designing a payload for an unproven vehicle? and why design a new one when the existing one works good?
And no mass is not the only issue. Ruggedizing won't help and it is not a given that it would be easier to build.
The FH uses a 5m fairing so there isn't much more room to add more mass.
Why should they start designing a payload for an unproven vehicle? The same reason why Intelsat is "CTO Thierry Guillemin said in a statement. “As a global leader in the satellite sector, our support of successful new entrants to the commercial launch industry reduces risk in our business model."
-
Either way we'll find out. The recently released designs for the Vandenberg SpaceX launch facility are for horizontal integration for Falcon Heavy (and presumably Faclon 9 v1.1 as well). So I expect they're going to fight the DoD on the issue, as crazy as that sounds.
No reason for a fight. It's simply a different market with different requirements. If vertical integration costs more, they'll charge more for it. Questions are how well they can segregate the costs and is it worth it?
-
Why should they start designing a payload for an unproven vehicle? The same reason why Intelsat is "CTO Thierry Guillemin said in a statement. “As a global leader in the satellite sector, our support of successful new entrants to the commercial launch industry reduces risk in our business model."
Different markets with different requirements, at least for the foreseeable future.
-
That all the current satellite builders are comfortable and expericenced with vertical integration explains why USAF wants that as a requirement, to not shut anyone out as a bidder. But as time moves on, if horizontal integration is cheaper, more vendors may choose to support it. It can't be impossible. Cantaliver loads can be taken up by a heavier, stronger fairing. Doesn't ride most of the way to orbit anyway, and strenght doesn't necessarily mean more volume.
Or, maybe they can be smarter about vertical integration. All they really need is a standard highrise tower crane to lift an integrated fairing/payload module up to the top of the stack. Do they really need a whole integration building? Or do they just need a work platform around the base of the LV while they bring the payload down for mating?
-
The payload doesn't touch the fairing. The payload is on the payload adapter. Thus, if you want cantilever loads, you need to beef up the payload itself. This means it will weigh more which means greater launch vehicle requirements, greater on-board propellant requirements (to complete GSO insertion and such), which ripples throughout the rest of the spacecraft design.
I am pretty sure SpaceX has some big building on a drawing board (well, computer screen) somewhere.
-
I am pretty sure SpaceX has some big building on a drawing board (well, computer screen) somewhere.
Undoubtedly they do, as their MO has been to build up to the market and requirements. If servicing DOD's requirements demands such, and they think they can make money at it, likely they will.
The most interesting question IMHO, is whether there is sufficient market and cost differentation in horizontal vs. vertical integration to make it viable for one provider such as SpaceX to do both?
-
I am pretty sure SpaceX has some big building on a drawing board (well, computer screen) somewhere.
Undoubtedly they do, as their MO has been to build up to the market and requirements. If servicing DOD's requirements demands such, and they think they can make money at it, likely they will.
The most interesting question IMHO, is whether there is sufficient market and cost differentation in horizontal vs. vertical integration to make it viable for one provider such as SpaceX to do both?
BTW, I think SpaceX would still do most payload integration on the ground. I think they may do as much payload integration separately from the launch vehicle as possible, just putting the payload on top right before launch (and then final checkout). Granted, because I have no experience in the industry at all, I have no reason to think that this isn't already the usual mode of operation for ULA. But I figured if I make a naive statement, I will be quickly corrected by an annoyed engineer.
-
Most launchers specify lateral launch loads on the spacecraft greater than that of horizontal integration. For example, see p.168 of the Atlas V Users guide (http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/product_cards/guides/AtlasVUsersGuide2010.pdf).
-
So ... not all customers have needs that are equally transparent. For a customer wanting a service provider to launch a comsat based on a well known bus ... the transparency is ~ 100%. For a customer wanting a service provider to launch a blacksat possibly like none ever flown? Transparency ~ zero. If the customer says they need some particular accommodation, who's going to know they don't?
-
If the customer says they need some particular accommodation, who's going to know they don't?
Exactly. If DOD or whoever says they need X, then who's to argue with them as they're the customer, and the customer is always right (*cough*), right? One could argue that the DOD/cusomer is wrong, and the the basis for our NSS strategy, the basis for DOD's acquisition strategy, and thus the basis for the entire "vertical" vs. "horzontal" discussion is misplaced.
Suffice it to say that, IMHO, the entire basis of DOD's acquisition program and the requirements emplaced are BS, and while nominally justifiable based on the DOD's perspective, are from a National Policy perspective short-sighted and unwarranted. But that's a policy discussion which goes far beyond the question of "vertical" vs. "horizontal" integration, and of which we may not speak in these threads.
-
Exactly. If DOD or whoever says they need X, then who's to argue with them as they're the customer, and the customer is always right (*cough*), right? One could argue that the DOD/cusomer is wrong, and the the basis for our NSS strategy, the basis for DOD's acquisition strategy, and thus the basis for the entire "vertical" vs. "horzontal" discussion is misplaced.
Suffice it to say that, IMHO, the entire basis of DOD's acquisition program and the requirements emplaced are incorrect, and while nominally justifiable based on the DOD's perspective, are from a National Policy perspective short-sighted and unwarranted. But that's a policy discussion which goes far beyond the question of "vertical" vs. "horizontal" integration, and of which we may not speak in these threads.
{snip}
The customer may be always right but they can find luxury items very expensive.
Also does the DOD need vertical integration or something simpler like vertical fuelling of the payload?
-
Why should they start designing a payload for an unproven vehicle? The same reason why Intelsat is "CTO Thierry Guillemin said in a statement. “As a global leader in the satellite sector, our support of successful new entrants to the commercial launch industry reduces risk in our business model."
Not a valid reason. We are talking about the DOD, they don't have a business model.
-
That all the current satellite builders are comfortable and expericenced with vertical integration explains why USAF wants that as a requirement, to not shut anyone out as a bidder. But as time moves on, if horizontal integration is cheaper, more vendors may choose to support it. It can't be impossible. Cantaliver loads can be taken up by a heavier, stronger fairing.
Wrong.
It has nothing to do with what builders are comfortable with.
The fairing has no part in spacecraft loads. They are in a separate load path.
-
BTW, I think SpaceX would still do most payload integration on the ground. I think they may do as much payload integration separately from the launch vehicle as possible, just putting the payload on top right before launch (and then final checkout). Granted, because I have no experience in the industry at all, I have no reason to think that this isn't already the usual mode of operation for ULA. But I figured if I make a naive statement, I will be quickly corrected by an annoyed engineer.
It is the standard MO.
-
There are valid technical requirements for vertical integration that go beyond the scope of this forum. It has nothing to do with the DOD being short sighted or trying to protect a "favored" contractor.
-
There are valid technical requirements for vertical integration that go beyond the scope of this forum.
Too difficult to explain or because the information is confidential?
-
Most launchers specify lateral launch loads on the spacecraft greater than that of horizontal integration.
Can't say that. What are the lateral loads (now vertical) induced by horizontal transport?
-
There are valid technical requirements for vertical integration that go beyond the scope of this forum.
Too difficult to explain or because the information is confidential?
I hacked a relevant secret document from Pentagon, attaching image from it...
-
Cantilever loads is the reason for issue for being on the side.
I'm gonna chime in.
F-9 is integrated horizontally, then they tip it up on the pad, then they fill it with fuel. Statically and dynamically, the rocket is not designed as a beam, it is designed as a column. So when one of those new companies seriously suggested that they were going to fill it up sideways, hang it under an airplane and take off with it... and then launch it, it seemed non-common-sensical.
[Cantilever] loads can be taken up by a heavier, stronger fairing lifting structure.
Fixed that for ya. Not sure what is the technical term for the lifting structure.
If the customer says they need some particular accommodation, who's going to know they don't?
Exactly.
Exactly. ...
[/quote]Suffice it to say that, IMHO, the entire basis of DOD's acquisition program and the requirements emplaced are incorrect ... and of which we may not speak in these threads.
[/quote]
Took the words right out of my mouth. Put another way, the acquisition process is quite distinct from the integration process, and they are functionally independent of one another.
There are valid technical requirements for vertical integration that go beyond the scope of this forum.
Of course I disagree. Those requirements are exactly what we'd like to know more about. "Technical" is not the same as "secrecy".
-
[Cantilever] loads can be taken up by a heavier, stronger fairing lifting structure.
Fixed that for ya. Not sure what is the technical term for the lifting structure.
Is it the 'strongback' in SpaceX language? But if you want the fairing on while horisontal it must have support structures for payload to null cantilever loads. In any case you need attachment points for them in the payload which complicates things.
Those requirements are exactly what we'd like to know more about. "Technical" is not the same as "secrecy".
Remember what the really big DOD payloads are. Stuff inside that you really, really don't want to warp.
-
Also, remember many of these payloads have been in development since before SpaceX was formed.
-
Is it the 'strongback' in SpaceX language? But if you want the fairing on while horisontal it must have support structures for payload to null cantilever loads. In any case you need attachment points for them in the payload which complicates things.
Those requirements are exactly what we'd like to know more about. "Technical" is not the same as "secrecy".
Remember what the really big DOD payloads are. Stuff inside that you really, really don't want to warp.
Yep: Strongback is the word I was looking for. But AIUI, the fairing is "just" for aerodynamic purposes. It is not attached to the payload at all, and is jettisoned once the atmo is thin enough to do so. All it has to do is support itself when in horizontal mode. And withstand gale force winds, I reckon.
Of course, it's understood in general that some big DoD sat would have to be significantly redesigned for horizontal integration; those dead weight loads would have to be retained by the adaptor and the payload. Maybe that's all the "technical" info needed.
Anyhow, if the customer sez "we need vertical integration", then as a launch provider, you provide that.
-
Most of ULA's payloads are processed at Astotech first, right ? The satellite gets shipped over to the LC on a truck a few days before launch, to complete the vertical integration.
Has SpaceX worked with Astrotech on a payload yet ?
For instance, when they launch those demo missions for the USAF / NASA, Astrotech would perform the majority of the spacecraft test and integration before it gets shipped to the SpaceX pad, right ?
How would that flow work if the payload came over vertical on the transport, then turned horizontal for integration with the LV, then moved vertical again ?
-
1. Has SpaceX worked with Astrotech on a payload yet ?
2. For instance, when they launch those demo missions for the USAF / NASA, Astrotech would perform the majority of the spacecraft test and integration before it gets shipped to the SpaceX pad, right ?
3. How would that flow work if the payload came over vertical on the transport, then turned horizontal for integration with the LV, then moved vertical again ?
1. No
2. no, the spacecraft contractor does. Astrotech just provides a facility. They are hands off.
3. Some don't want to be horizontal at all once configured for flight
-
I have a serious question on why the payload should be able to set a requirement like that against the launch vehicle.
There are some points in favor of vertical integration. First is structural (you have only one load path). And second has to do with certain payloads that need liquid N or He to be kept in a certain position. There are some sensors that if they don't stay at cryo temperatures, they might suffer damage.
I still don't understand that last part. The payload is designed for zero g. In orbit, there won't be gravity to keep the cryo fluids in any certain position, so how can sensors be sensitive to that?
Ignoring structural issues for the moment, why would any payload that can be in zero g know or care that it's on it's side?
Would spin stabilization be part of it? There I could see the sensors being placed so they are "down" for vertical integration and also "down" while the payload is spinning.
-
I have a serious question on why the payload should be able to set a requirement like that against the launch vehicle.
There are some points in favor of vertical integration. First is structural (you have only one load path). And second has to do with certain payloads that need liquid N or He to be kept in a certain position. There are some sensors that if they don't stay at cryo temperatures, they might suffer damage.
I still don't understand that last part. The payload is designed for zero g. In orbit, there won't be gravity to keep the cryo fluids in any certain position, so how can sensors be sensitive to that?
Ignoring structural issues for the moment, why would any payload that can be in zero g know or care that it's on it's side?
Would spin stabilization be part of it? There I could see the sensors being placed so they are "down" for vertical integration and also "down" while the payload is spinning.
Take a tape measure, extract a long portion of it while keeping it vertical. Now rotate it horizontal. See how it collapses.
-
Mlinder,
Yes, I understand that part. What I don't understand is the comment saying cryo fluids have to be kept in a certain position to keep the sensors covered. If turning the payload horizontal will uncover those sensors, what keeps them covered in zero g?
-
Or, to ask the question another way, if FH really can toss 30-50MT into orbit, why can't the payload be built a little heavier, a little more rugged? Probably easier to build anyway. Is mass the only issue preventing easy horizontal integration?
I suspect more than that. It probably complicates having to desgin a payload that needs to be supported both horizontaly and vertically. I mean most things esp. large things don't take well to being improperly supported(i.e. Car on wheels no problem, car on door...body damage).
-
Just remembered something. If a payload has cryogens onboard, vertical integration is required to keep the ullage space in the same orientation as the vent valve.