Author Topic: SpaceX Expanding Texas Operations  (Read 17132 times)

Offline corrodedNut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1543
  • Liked: 213
  • Likes Given: 130
Re: SpaceX Expanding Texas Operations
« Reply #40 on: 03/11/2011 01:37 am »
Well, that's why I asked...so I guess that means the first time all three Delta IV Heavy cores were run together was its maiden flight?

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10484
  • Liked: 420
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: SpaceX Expanding Texas Operations
« Reply #41 on: 03/11/2011 01:44 am »
What about the possibility of a new test stand for Falcon Heavy? Not a tall, vertical stand like the big "tripod", but a horizontal one like ATK's in Utah.

horizontal doesn't work for liquid stages.  Also, what reason?  the individual cores can be tested, there is nothing to gain buy ground testing 3 of them at once.

Horizontal seemed to work for this liquid stage.

We're seeing a vertical S-IC stage there, firing into a 90 degree deflector on the B-1 test stand I think.

Correct Ed.   There's a better image of it here (click image to get other resolutions), and you can clearly see the stage integrated vertically in the far-most stand.

« Last Edit: 03/11/2011 01:46 am by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3935
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 895
Re: SpaceX Expanding Texas Operations
« Reply #42 on: 03/11/2011 01:48 am »

Of course, Spaceport America would be more than accommodating too.  Probably have fewer hoops to jump through and be more responsive too. 

Not really, they wont have the infrastructure for such tests.

I believe that SpaceX wants to use their LAS as a propulsive landing stage.  In that case they ALREADY have the infrastructure for that.  They hosted the NASA Lunar Lander Challenge with it.
If Dragon uses Draco thrusters for LAS/landing, those use hypergol propellants.

What Jim means by infrastructure is not only a takeoff/landing area, but the facilities to both store and handle hypergolic fuels, plus pre- and post-test vehicle processing. That location might also have to implement and pass environmental and safety studies to gain permission for allowing a hypergolic-fueled vehicle to be processed and launched, plus possible aborts and range safety.



Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32614
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11450
  • Likes Given: 338
Re: SpaceX Expanding Texas Operations
« Reply #43 on: 03/11/2011 01:52 am »
Also radars and telemetry antennas

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Expanding Texas Operations
« Reply #44 on: 03/11/2011 01:53 am »
Draco only produces about 80-90 pounds trust
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Halidon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 831
  • whereabouts unknown
  • Liked: 142
  • Likes Given: 422
Re: SpaceX Expanding Texas Operations
« Reply #45 on: 03/11/2011 02:10 am »
We haven't really had any clear indication of what sort of engine SpaceX would use for Abort/Propulsive Landing, have we? Their presentations haven't really discussed it and Elon didn't speak much about engines when he talked about the A/PL concept.

Online Dave G

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1247
  • Likes Given: 1333
Re: SpaceX Expanding Texas Operations
« Reply #46 on: 03/11/2011 02:21 am »
If Dragon uses Draco thrusters for LAS/landing, those use hypergol propellants.

What Jim means by infrastructure is not only a takeoff/landing area, but the facilities to both store and handle hypergolic fuels, plus pre- and post-test vehicle processing. That location might also have to implement and pass environmental and safety studies to gain permission for allowing a hypergolic-fueled vehicle to be processed and launched, plus possible aborts and range safety.

NOFBX use in Dragon?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24360.0

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5202
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 226
Re: SpaceX Expanding Texas Operations
« Reply #47 on: 03/11/2011 04:06 am »
Didn't Space-X have some local noise complaints when they ran the 9x engine configuration at their full power around 1.1m lb thrust?

If they're getting noise complaints at that level, they're going to have real issues trying to run a 1.7m lb thrust engine at that site.

The major noise complaint was a late night 9-engine test.  SpaceX manages things a bit better now

The complaints also went down after they got the $1.6B CRS contract.  The locals like them a lot more after that.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28850
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 9025
  • Likes Given: 5793
Re: SpaceX Expanding Texas Operations
« Reply #48 on: 03/11/2011 04:29 am »
Didn't Space-X have some local noise complaints when they ran the 9x engine configuration at their full power around 1.1m lb thrust?

If they're getting noise complaints at that level, they're going to have real issues trying to run a 1.7m lb thrust engine at that site.

The major noise complaint was a late night 9-engine test.  SpaceX manages things a bit better now

The complaints also went down after they got the $1.6B CRS contract.  The locals like them a lot more after that.
Funny how that works. :)
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline MP99

Re: SpaceX Expanding Texas Operations
« Reply #49 on: 03/11/2011 07:33 am »
Didn't Space-X have some local noise complaints when they ran the 9x engine configuration at their full power around 1.1m lb thrust?

I believe there was a temperature inversion, which helped carry the sound much further than it would have done otherwise.

Presuming they can avoid these conditions, I think the problem would be less.

cheers, Martin

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3757
  • Earth
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 3252
Re: SpaceX Expanding Texas Operations
« Reply #50 on: 11/12/2011 07:44 pm »
The a link on the grasshopper thread to http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/20111110%20SpaceX%20Grasshopper%20Final%20EA.pdf

shows that "The McGregor test site has an existing capacity to store 260,000 gallons of LOX and 102,000 gallons of RP-1".

I just don't think I had seen that info before.
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3607
  • Florida
  • Liked: 2060
  • Likes Given: 246
Re: SpaceX Expanding Texas Operations
« Reply #51 on: 11/12/2011 07:56 pm »
The a link on the grasshopper thread to http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/20111110%20SpaceX%20Grasshopper%20Final%20EA.pdf

shows that "The McGregor test site has an existing capacity to store 260,000 gallons of LOX and 102,000 gallons of RP-1".

I just don't think I had seen that info before.

Thats ~ enough to do 4 full duration 1st stage test fires.

Though at their current engine testing pace they would have to refill the tanks completely at least monthly.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3607
  • Florida
  • Liked: 2060
  • Likes Given: 246
Re: SpaceX Expanding Texas Operations
« Reply #52 on: 11/12/2011 08:13 pm »
Just thinking about what the propellant costs could be per year I get a value of up to $6M a year in propellant. Thatís all dependent on the burn durations and the number of engine firings in a year. The $6M value is an upper end so actual could be as low as $1M. $1M is only 2 full refills.

Tags: