SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 - CASSIOPE - September, 2013 - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD

[cambrianera]

But from the picture, there is still a bunch of stuff missing above the hold in the ground. Maybe it's too far zoomed-out, but that looks like a lot of rebar or some type of short steel beams sticking out of the concrete. Like more concrete needs to be poured to create some above-ground structures, or some type of major construction still needs to occur.

Looking at the rendering that was released with the pictures, it seems that the rebar is only for some kind of interface with the steel structure, ie no more concrete pouring.
That's my personal opinion.

[Lurker Steve]

If you look at your picture, which is supposed to be the end result, and then look at the hole in the ground, you can see significant effort remaining to be done.

Sure, there is a big metal piece sitting in the hole. Let's call that 1 part of the "hinge" that swings the erector vertical.

There is supposed to be a huge "erector" frame sitting on top of that hole, where the vehicle rolls onto before it goes vertical. I assume that's too big to be transported in one piece, so someone is welding that structure together.

Then I see a number of hydraulic levers that provide the "erecting" motion of the frame that are missing. There are 5 between the bottom of the hole and the metal "hinge" and another set that connect the "hinge" to the erector frame.

This is not the same simple setup that SpaceX uses at LC-41. Besides, remember the rule that the last 10 percent of a project takes 90 percent of the time.

[JBF]

transporter and erector being assembled in the hanger. From 4 months ago.

[Lars_J]

If you look at your picture, which is supposed to be the end result, and then look at the hole in the ground, you can see significant effort remaining to be done.

Well... of course. And you did realize that the photo was not taken yesterday, right?

[baldusi]

BTW, do we know if that erector will be permanently attached to the pad or will be used to integrate the LV on the hangar and transport it to the pad, like the strong back on CCAFS?

[Lurker Steve]

If you look at your picture, which is supposed to be the end result, and then look at the hole in the ground, you can see significant effort remaining to be done.

Well... of course. And you did realize that the photo was not taken yesterday, right?

I didn't say the parts were not there. They just aren't in place.
The erector is still in pieces, not actually welded together in one piece at the pad. Also, while the future integration building has turned into a temporary assembly area for the erector, it can't be properly prepared as an integration building.

[Lars_J]

If you look at your picture, which is supposed to be the end result, and then look at the hole in the ground, you can see significant effort remaining to be done.

Well... of course. And you did realize that the photo was not taken yesterday, right?

I didn't say the parts were not there. They just aren't in place.
The erector is still in pieces, not actually welded together in one piece at the pad. Also, while the future integration building has turned into a temporary assembly area for the erector, it can't be properly prepared as an integration building.

You are missing my point. Let me be clearer. They weren't in place 4 months ago. Do you have more up to date images or information? If so, please share.

[JBF]

BTW, do we know if that erector will be permanently attached to the pad or will be used to integrate the LV on the hangar and transport it to the pad, like the strong back on CCAFS?

It's just like CCAFS except a lot larger and instead of rails it will use a system similar to what Orbital does with Antares.

[Lars_J]

BTW, do we know if that erector will be permanently attached to the pad or will be used to integrate the LV on the hangar and transport it to the pad, like the strong back on CCAFS?

We don't, but besides being more robust, it really is not that different from CCAFS. (biggest difference is no rails)

I have attached an image that I have annotated based on how I see the pieces fit together:
 - Green pieces are moved with the rocket to and from the pad. (this is the structure you see being welded inside the hangar in the pictures four months ago)
 - Blue pieces are attached to the pad.

[ChefPat]

Somebody's just going to have to go out there & take some pictures!

[beancounter]

Somebody's just going to have to go out there & take some pictures!

Anyone got the pictures yet?   

[jacqmans]

From SpcaceX facebookpage:

An American flag flies high atop SpaceX’s new transporter erector at Vandenberg. Happy Fourth of July!

[mlindner]

Larger resolution from SpaceX twitter page.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BOXCgf7CQAACyYM.jpg:orig

[SpacexULA]

God that's a very bare erector.  I was really hoping Falcon 1.1 had a mostly plumbed pad awaiting it.  Looks like as usual Jim is right.

[JBF]

God that's a very bare erector.  I was really hoping Falcon 1.1 had a mostly plumbed pad awaiting it.  Looks like as usual Jim is right.

Jason1701 stated that's an old picture.  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31734.msg1070954#msg1070954

[mrmandias]

First stage acceptance test?

[Lurker Steve]

God that's a very bare erector.  I was really hoping Falcon 1.1 had a mostly plumbed pad awaiting it.  Looks like as usual Jim is right.

Jason1701 stated that's an old picture.  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31734.msg1070954#msg1070954

I don't think that's the picture Jason was referring to.

[Lars_J]

God that's a very bare erector.  I was really hoping Falcon 1.1 had a mostly plumbed pad awaiting it.  Looks like as usual Jim is right.

Jason1701 stated that's an old picture.  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31734.msg1070954#msg1070954

I don't think that's the picture Jason was referring to.

Even if he wasn't, there is no useful EXIF data attached to the new image, so it could have been taken anytime between yesterday and weeks ago. They just grabbed a SpaceX picture with a flag to post on 4th of July.

[PreferToLurk]

God that's a very bare erector.  I was really hoping Falcon 1.1 had a mostly plumbed pad awaiting it.  Looks like as usual Jim is right.

Jason1701 stated that's an old picture.  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31734.msg1070954#msg1070954

I don't think that's the picture Jason was referring to.

He was replying to a reply of the image in question.  So other than the fact that there is no EXIF data to back him up, do you have any other reason for doubting his claim?  He has a pretty sparkling track record of accurate information, IMHO.

[Lurker Steve]

God that's a very bare erector.  I was really hoping Falcon 1.1 had a mostly plumbed pad awaiting it.  Looks like as usual Jim is right.

Jason1701 stated that's an old picture.  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31734.msg1070954#msg1070954

I don't think that's the picture Jason was referring to.

He was replying to a reply of the image in question.  So other than the fact that there is no EXIF data to back him up, do you have any other reason for doubting his claim?  He has a pretty sparkling track record of accurate information, IMHO.

That thread had a picture of a portion of the "lever" that is used as a lifting mechanism in the trench. There was also a picture of an un-assembled erector frame being worked on in the integration building.

These pictures were not part of that thread. The only pictures of the erector in the vertical position in that thread were line drawings meant to show where that item in the trench fit into the completed erector structure.

I know I'm getting old, but that conversation only took place a week or two ago, so it's fresh in my mind. Jason did mention that the old pictures were from about 4-5 months ago when Bolden visited the site.