SpaceX purchace of old MILA tracking antennas

[AnimatorRob]

According to the caption of this image at the KCS media archive http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=61647 SpaceX has purchased the old MILA antennas.
 

These antennas were used by NASA during the Apollo and space shuttle programs. They are being re-purposed by SpaceX. The antennas will moved to another location, reassembled and refurbished for tracking during future SpaceX launches and missions.

Any thoughts on where these tracking assets will be used? Is there any advantage at having their own at CCAF, or are they more likely for their new pad in Texas?

[Jim]

They are already at SLC-40.  Just a case of Spacex trying to do it on their own.  However, location is not optimal

[docmordrid]

But are they at LC-40 for good, or are they just parked there prior to relocation elsewhere such as their new spaceport? Sounds like the latter.

[Jim]

But are they at LC-40 for good, or are they just parked there prior to relocation elsewhere such as their new spaceport? Sounds like the latter.

They aren't "parked" but set up.
There would be no need to park them at LC-40 if they were to be moved else.  Spacex has plenty of other areas to store hardware, such as behind AO.

Why do people think Spacex is always going for the home run, when they all they do is hit doubles?

[JBF]

But are they at LC-40 for good, or are they just parked there prior to relocation elsewhere such as their new spaceport? Sounds like the latter.

They aren't "parked" but set up.
There would be no need to park them at LC-40 if they were to be moved else.  Spacex has plenty of other areas to store hardware, such as behind AO.

Why do people think Spacex is always going for the home run, when they all they do is hit doubles?

Consistent doubles will win the game over a home run.

[Jim]

Consistent doubles will win the game over a home run.

That is not the point I am trying to convey.

[Robotbeat]

But are they at LC-40 for good, or are they just parked there prior to relocation elsewhere such as their new spaceport? Sounds like the latter.

They aren't "parked" but set up.
There would be no need to park them at LC-40 if they were to be moved else.  Spacex has plenty of other areas to store hardware, such as behind AO.

Why do people think Spacex is always going for the home run, when they all they do is hit doubles?

Consistent doubles will win the game over a home run.

His point is that people very often think SpaceX is going to do something all of a sudden revolutionary. Their actual pattern of development is more to do evolutionary steps.

Merlin pressure-fed ablative -> Merlin pump-fed ablative with pump from Barber-Nichols -> Merlin regen with Barber-Nichols pump -> Merlin regen with SpaceX in-house pump

Falcon 1 -> Falcon 9 -> Falcon 9 v1.1 -> Falcon Heavy (planned)

Dragon cargo -> eventually Dragon crewed (with abort) -> maybe Dragon crewed vertical landing -> maybe Red Dragon platform for unmanned interplanetary missions

Grasshopper -> Grasshopper 2 (planned) -> maybe eventually Falcon 9 reusable first stage -> maybe eventually Falcon 9 fully reusable (using many of the techniques learned with DragonRider vertical landing to be used for the upper stage)

They play up their "revolutionary" aspect, but they are very much evolutionary when it comes to actual development. And it will take time, even if they do succeed.

But they're not going straight to a new spaceport (if they ever do)... They're STILL building up their current one, and plan to upgrade it. It's a double or a single, not a home-run.

[sdsds]

Would the capability these provide allow them to better track the fate of F9 first stages?

[go4mars]

Are these for operations at pad 40?  Or Are they for "the commercial range"?   Maybe test at 40 then pack them up?

[Windbourne]

Odd, Why would they do this?
They have far more important things to spend money on (FH, dragon rider, raptor, etc).
Is there any real advantage to owning this since they can get it from NASA already?

[JBF]

Experience in operating such setups in preparation for their own launch site.

[beancounter]

Experience in operating such setups in preparation for their own launch site.

Quite possible.  We know that Elon is a fan of vertical integration and going with as much in-house work as he can.  It's a deliberate business strategy created firstly by exhorbitent supplier pricing initially but now I suspect it's embraced because it reduces or eliminates dependancies. 

[simonbp]

Odd, Why would they do this?
They have far more important things to spend money on (FH, dragon rider, raptor, etc).
Is there any real advantage to owning this since they can get it from NASA already?

They saw cheap high-gain antennas and bought them. Things like this don't come on the market often, and you have to buy them when you see them.

[rcoppola]

Just seems like smart business. They'll need these as they develop their own fully private launch site. Just another item to check off the list. I'm sure there will be many small, medium to large items that NASA no longer needs or can afford that SpaceX will purchase over the next few years. I think it's great. NASA makes some cash, SpaceX saves some cash. Win - Win.

[Nomadd]

 I'm not sure what I'm looking at in the photo. Is most of the primary reflector missing on those antennas?

[watermod]

But are they at LC-40 for good, or are they just parked there prior to relocation elsewhere such as their new spaceport? Sounds like the latter.

They aren't "parked" but set up.
There would be no need to park them at LC-40 if they were to be moved else.  Spacex has plenty of other areas to store hardware, such as behind AO.

Why do people think Spacex is always going for the home run, when they all they do is hit doubles?

Consistent doubles will win the game over a home run.

His point is that people very often think SpaceX is going to do something all of a sudden revolutionary. Their actual pattern of development is more to do evolutionary steps.

Merlin pressure-fed ablative -> Merlin pump-fed ablative with pump from Barber-Nichols -> Merlin regen with Barber-Nichols pump -> Merlin regen with SpaceX in-house pump

Falcon 1 -> Falcon 9 -> Falcon 9 v1.1 -> Falcon Heavy (planned)

Dragon cargo -> eventually Dragon crewed (with abort) -> maybe Dragon crewed vertical landing -> maybe Red Dragon platform for unmanned interplanetary missions

Grasshopper -> Grasshopper 2 (planned) -> maybe eventually Falcon 9 reusable first stage -> maybe eventually Falcon 9 fully reusable (using many of the techniques learned with DragonRider vertical landing to be used for the upper stage)

They play up their "revolutionary" aspect, but they are very much evolutionary when it comes to actual development. And it will take time, even if they do succeed.

But they're not going straight to a new spaceport (if they ever do)... They're STILL building up their current one, and plan to upgrade it. It's a double or a single, not a home-run.

It looks more like objected programming then evolutionary steps to me.
..Instance of the object and add some methods or swap out a member object for a new member object or overload the object.  One could even place the landing stages for re-use into the destructor method used by the class LaunchFalconRocket.

Considering that SpaceX is founded by Silicon Valley types it makes sense.

[beancounter]

It looks more like objected programming then evolutionary steps to me.
..Instance of the object and add some methods or swap out a member object for a new member object or overload the object.  One could even place the landing stages for re-use into the destructor method used by the class LaunchFalconRocket.

Considering that SpaceX is founded by Silicon Valley types it makes sense.
[/quote]

Translation please 

[mlindner]

It looks more like objected programming then evolutionary steps to me.
..Instance of the object and add some methods or swap out a member object for a new member object or overload the object.  One could even place the landing stages for re-use into the destructor method used by the class LaunchFalconRocket.

Considering that SpaceX is founded by Silicon Valley types it makes sense.

Translation please 

I'm CS and that still only makes marginal sense. It's rather a stretch to apply object oriented design principals to rocket designs.

P.S. Fix your quotes.

[thegreatpeon]

It looks more like objected programming then evolutionary steps to me.
..Instance of the object and add some methods or swap out a member object for a new member object or overload the object.  One could even place the landing stages for re-use into the destructor method used by the class LaunchFalconRocket.

Considering that SpaceX is founded by Silicon Valley types it makes sense.

Translation please 

I'm CS and that still only makes marginal sense. It's rather a stretch to apply object oriented design principals to rocket designs.

P.S. Fix your quotes.

Yeah... comparing this to object oriented design is quite the stretch.

For those who don't know what object oriented design means, it's a style of programming. It's kinda complicated but the essence is that each piece of the program is it's own separate piece that can interact with other pieces of the program. These pieces are called objects.

As I said, this doesn't really apply well to the example provided by watermod. It is an engineer's mindset to work on a problem, though.

[llanitedave]

It's great if you're going to build a simulation, but not quite the same for the real deal.

[bob the martian]

For those who don't know what object oriented design means, it's a style of programming. It's kinda complicated but the essence is that each piece of the program is it's own separate piece that can interact with other pieces of the program. These pieces are called objects.

The three main attributes of object-oriented programming and design are encapsulation (limiting expoure of data to only those parts of the program that really need it), polymorphism (applying the same operation to different types), and inheritance (extending types to add new attributes or behavior, while preserving the attributes and behaviors of the parent type). 

Probably the only OOP concept that applies cleanly to the Falcon family would be inheritance; FH "inherits" the cores and engines from the F9, while extending the "type" by adding duplicate cores.  The same concept kinda-sorta applies to EELVs like the Delta IV; you have a baseline stage (CBC) that can be extended by adding SRMs or additional CBCs to create different "types" of rockets. 

Okay, maybe not so cleanly. 

[nat.vincent]

I'm not sure what I'm looking at in the photo. Is most of the primary reflector missing on those antennas?

Looks like it... Here's a "before" shot:

[Nomadd]

If that's the hydraulic mechanism I'm familiar with from some old 80s antennas we used to have, I hope they didn't pay more than scrap metal prices. I was never happier to see something go in the crusher. Using domed antennas so the dishes can be perfectly balanced and driven by tiny motors has made life a whole lot easier.