From Atlas V to Falcon XX - Commercial suitors wanted for Pad 39A

[wkann]

Ok, so questions for anyone who worked at 39A:

Crew access for Falcon 9 V1.1 is considerable higher then for Shuttle. How difficult and/or time consuming will it be to alter the current Crew Tower to align it with Dragon atop F9?

I don't think it would be that hard. Couldn't they just move the access arm up a few levels on the fixed service structure? (swap out the gaseous oxygen vent arm "Benie Cap" with a crew access arm.) Or, use the idea they had early on with SLS about extending the height of the fixed service structure to accommodate taller launch vehicles.

[Lobo]

1.If you mean just Florida launches, Most likely yes things will get consolidated.

Do you have anything to back that ...idea.. up? Because that seems unlikely. Why would SpaceX abandon a working pad?

No, if anything - as suggested by others - 39A would be for FH and crew launches. 40 would remain as a commercial/ISS cargo pad.

The interesting question is how this (if true) will affect Brownsville, TX. Presumably this would put that on hold.

My guess is they would keep LC-40 going, and launch the smaller payloads and commercial cargo missions which would make up the bulk of SpaceX's gravy money work.  I would think 39A would be for both F9R and FH.  F9R launching crews (SpaceX is hoping they get) and to suppliment F9R launches with LC-40.  Also, it would likely have vertical integration on it, which (according to Jim) SpaceX -needs- if they want USAF/DoD contracts.  They would need to add all of these features to LC-40 (crew access, vertical integration, and FH capability) without inturrupting the manifest of work LC-40 already has.
This way they can do the work they need to to 39A while punching out launches on LC-40 and keeping the revenues rolling in. 

I know Jim has said before that SpaceX may regret they demolished the vertical MSS at SLC-4 at VAFB rather than just have left it and slated it for -later- renovation and modification to vertically integrate payloads on F9R and FH on the pad.  But, that said, I think most of USAF/DoD launches are from the Cape, not VAFB, so if they install vertical integration there, they can still go after the majority of USAF/DoD's launches.  And either have to add vertical integration to SLC-4 later, or just cede that to ULA.

Here's a list of Atlas and Delta launches from 2000-2009, and it looks like there's been a lot more launches from the cape than VAFB.  So that might be where there's more meat on the bone to go after anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlas_launches_(2000-2009)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Thor_and_Delta_launches_(2000%E2%80%932009)

[Lobo]

Shut it down? It's shut down right now, and it's going to be leveled after 10/1 if they don't find a tenant. SpaceX has already stated they are not interested in a shared facility. It should be given to someone who is going to use it, not hope to use it (like Blue Origin).

Where does one go out and buy an MLP and why would they need one? NASA has two which to offer if they were going to share 39B and could be used for A if they didn't want to use an erector.

Although I'm sure the FSS could be modified to support launching F9R and FH on MLP's stacked in the VAB, sounds like SpaceX would probably build their own VIF right on the pad.  It'd probably look similar to LC-37.  Cores would be brought up the ramp horizontally and then stacked on the pad with a mobile VIF/MSS that would cover it for processing.  Then retract for launch.
Dunno about the FSS.  Jim thinks they'd level it.  Maybe.  They may just strip it down to the bones, and then use it as a fixed tower.  It already has all of the stairs, elevators, and cable excape system (if SpaceX gets commercial crew), as well as the lightning tower on top.  So all the basic components are there.  But it reall depends on how much modification would be required to use them from the shuttle stack.  How close is the Shuttle crew access swing arm to where crew would be entering Dragon on F9R?  Can it be moved that much?  How about the other arms?  Anyone know off the tops of their heads?
I'd think the shuttle's crew access arm would be too low for Dragon on F9R, but maybe it could be relocated to where the ET vent cap arm is or something?  That might be closer in height.

If it's not worth it, they may just level it and start over. 

[Lobo]

With the difference in height - I wonder how much sense it makes to keep any of the existing access tower.

Here is my quick photoshop of how a F9 would look on the Shuttle pad, on top of a Shuttle image: (scale should be roughly accurate)

If as you say the scale is accurate, It's hard to see how they could utilize the existing structure without  some needed changes. We clearly don't have all the facts we need.

I posted my last before I saw this.  The ET vent cap access arm might not even be tall enough.  However, I still think they could take the tower down to it's bones, and then build an extension on the top for crew access and 2nd stage and payload/Dragon umbilicals.  Remember the base part of the tower is the old Saturn V tower and it was originally much taller.  So no reason they couldn't just build an extension on top. They'd probably need new access arm anyway, or at least have them relocated.  That could be planned into the new top, and the old access arms could possibly be used on the new mounts on the new top. 
The base below that is just a trust structure.  They could put new escape wires in at the top and still slide them down to the bunkers.

All the RSS components would be removed obivously.  The MSS/VIF could be mounted on the other side of the pad and roll over the stack, and retract off to that side.  Something like this, with the tower on one side of the pad, and the MSS/VIF on the other side.  FH would then sit at a 90 deg angle to how SLS will sit accross the flame divider.

[Lobo]

With the difference in height - I wonder how much sense it makes to keep any of the existing access tower.

Here is my quick photoshop of how a F9 would look on the Shuttle pad, on top of a Shuttle image: (scale should be roughly accurate)

Eliminate the MLP and put the base of the Falcon in the flame trench.

The blast deflector can be removed and a launch stand for the Falcon can be put into place.  The Falcon can even roll to the pad from this direction

http://www.flickr.com/photos/imagined_horizons/4353621241/

YEa, or that...That'd work too.  :-)

Perhaps they could put in a blast wall on the far side (the CT approach side) and then have the MSS/VIF retract past that.  Then the flame would all come out this side only, rather than be split two directions. 

The cores could be loaded on the stand from this side, like the D4 cores are.  The stack would sit down in the trench, so the tower might not need to be extened as much as we were all thinking.  And the MSS/VIF wouldn't need to be as tall either.  it would only cover the part of the stack above the top of the trench.  And obviously have a vertical payload integration room like the MSS at LC-37.

Looks like there's enough level area on the CT approach side of the pad that a MSS/VIF could be pulled back far enough to be safe.

[Lobo]

Or, could the RSS be modified to basically make it a rotating version of the MSS/VIF at LC-37?  Have it rotate out over the pad, then load the cores into it, and then close the front doors like the LC-37 MSS for processing.

Picture the shots below, but with the MSS/VIF rotating around the tower, rather than rolling back from it.

[newpylong]

From the quotes it seems to be they would want to use whatever they can, even if that means removing the rotating service structure and designing a new access arm higher up on the FSS. I am sure they can make something work.

[Jim]

1.  I don't think it would be that hard. Couldn't they just move the access arm up a few levels on the fixed service structure? (swap out the gaseous oxygen vent arm "Benie Cap" with a crew access arm.)

2.  Or, use the idea they had early on with SLS about extending the height of the fixed service structure to accommodate taller launch vehicles.

1. There isn't much real estate on that level for crew escape

2.  Too expensive for Spacex

This is Spacex and not NASA, cost matters.

[PahTo]

I assume modifying the FSS is more cost-effective than razing/building a new one, but it sure sounds like a lot of work.  Boy, watching an RP1 fuelled vehicle launch from 39A is something to look forward to!
Is there a thread discussing from where these vehicles will roll?

[Lobo]

I assume modifying the FSS is more cost-effective than razing/building a new one, but it sure sounds like a lot of work.  Boy, watching an RP1 fuelled vehicle launch from 39A is something to look forward to!
Is there a thread discussing from where these vehicles will roll?

The more I think about it, the more I think modifying the RSS to basically be the VIB/MSS might be a good play.  That's basically what the RSS already is anyway.  Half of one anyway.  the MSS/VIF at LC-37 is able to retract and deploy on the D4/D4H LV's just fine, so I don't know why the RSS couldn't.  And it retracts far enough to the side of the tower that [I'm assuming] It's not damaged during take off, and STS had more thrust that FH will have, so FH's plume shouldn't be quite as big as STS's. 
I think you could have a MSS that moved back the ramp side of the pad as well like LC-37, it looks like there's enough room.  But if the RSS is already there, and if it could be modified from the clamshell to a full enclosure, then that's less that they'd have to actually do to the pad.  Obviously the tower will need a lot of modifications.  It might not need to be as tall as originally thought if the F9/FH sits down in the trench as Jim proposed.  The tower might then be tall enough, but the crew access arm would have to be relocated, or just a new one built.  Looks like the beanie cap arm might be in about the right place -if- a crew access arm could be mounted there.  The current crew access arm and intertank access arm might then be in roughly the right place for the F9/FH interstage area where I think the RP-1 and LOX lines would be located. 

So maybe with the LV sitting in the flame trench, it might not be so far off.


But perhaps then the beanie cap arm could me modified into a 2nd stage umbilical arm, and then the intertank arm could be made into the 1st stage umbilical arm.   

[Lobo]

This picture looks like the existing access arms might be at about the interstage area.  I suppose how far down in the trench they put the stand could be determined by how the interestage area lines up with the existing crew access and intertank access arms.  Those would allow tech access to the interstage area for servicing the 2nd stage MPS.  Not sure where the fill ports on both stages are, but that arm could have extension above or below it to hold the fuel lines.  The current strongback just has them hanging there anyway without separate arms.  So fill lines for both stages could be carried by an access arm there, and then after ignition, the arm pulls back and pop the fuel lines out.  Currently they just burn up.

So, if a crew access arm is added to the top of the tower, and the crew escape lines maybe moved up to that level, the tower might not be too far off.  It'd need some modifications for sure, but perhaps not as much as originally thought. 

 

[Lurker Steve]

When is the last time the RP-1 lines at Pad 39A have been used ? They are replacing all of those lines at 39-B, right ? I assume the 40-50 year old plumbing needs to be replaced here as well.

[Lobo]

When is the last time the RP-1 lines at Pad 39A have been used ? They are replacing all of those lines at 39-B, right ? I assume the 40-50 year old plumbing needs to be replaced here as well.

I'm sure they'd need replaced.  But that would be the case with any new pad.
Or could the LH2 lines be used for RP-1?  F9/FH had no LH2 in it.  Just take out the LH2 storage tank and replace it with RP-1 storage tanks.  Or could the LH2 stage tank/tanks be used for RP-1?

I don't know enough about those particulars to hazard a guess.

But if the LH2 lines could be used to move RP-1, those lines already go up to the intertank access arms of the FSS right?  Which might be about the interstage area of F9/FH?  So it might be an interesting scenario where that hardware is all used to send RP-1 up to those arms, and they get used for kerolox rather than hydrolox. 

Or perhaps they'd be too different to do that. 

[PahTo]

Correct:  RP-1 infrastructure would be required at 39A (I don't think they're doing RP-1 on 39B yet/until they know they need it).

Lobo, the FSS only had/has vent facilities (ah, remember the GUCP efforts)--the supply lines were on the TSMs (LOX on one, LH2 on the other).  I'm honestly not sure if the LH2 stuff could be used for RP-1, but I suspect not.

[Lobo]

Correct:  RP-1 infrastructure would be required at 39A (I don't think they're doing RP-1 on 39B yet/until they know they need it).

Lobo, the FSS only had/has vent facilities (ah, remember the GUCP efforts)--the supply lines were on the TSMs (LOX on one, LH2 on the other).  I'm honestly not sure if the LH2 stuff could be used for RP-1, but I suspect not.

Well, that was probably just a little too optimistic.  :-)

However, if nothing else, everything would be there for the RP-1 lines.  They'd have to pull out the LH2 stuff, but there'd be space for the RP-1 stuff to go right back where the LH2 stuff came out of.  Like putting a new exhaust system on your car.  You have to remove the old exhaust system, but if the new system can go right where the old one went, that much easier than having to cut a new path for it and mount it.
Like replacing the stock exhaust system vs. putting in a custom dual exhaust when stock didn't have that.  The former is easier and cheaper than the latter.

And I'm very curious about the existing shuttle intertank access will potentially line up with the interstage area of F9/FH.
Looking at the current umbilical set up, it looks like there are four hoses.  One up at the Dragon trunk, two to the top of the interstage, an one to the bottom of the interstage.
Anyone know what each is doing?  I'm assuming that's two RP-1 lines, and two LOX lines, one for each stage, but just not sure of their connection locations.
If the Shuttle intertank access arms would line up with the interstage area of Falcon, could that handle the needed connection points?

[Lobo]

So, would it be better to have a MSS that retracted off to the ramp side of the pad?  Or modify the RSS into a full enclsure?

From the picture below it looks liek there's be enough room on the ramp side of the pad to make an LC-37 like MSS on rails.  (assuming the CT isn't partially on the ramp...hard to tell for sure from that picture).
But that would require a lot of tearing up of the surface of the pad to install the rails and other things necessary.  But that might not be too hard.

But if they gutted the RSS, and build an enclosure on the rotating support elements, that could potentially be easier than a brand new MSS.  maybe...

Anyone have thoughts one which way would be better for them to go?  (speculation here of course).

[padrat]

There are no RP-1 lines left on 39A. 39B has part of a line left that runs from the flarestack to the base of the pad slope.

As far as using the LH2 lines for RP-1, I guess you could. They're made of Invar which i imagine is RP-1 compatible. But seems to me to be a waste of some expensive vacuum jacketed lines that could be better used in the future for liquid methane. In my opinion it'd be more worth it to just run new lines. You're going to need to put in tanks and pumps anyways....

[Ronsmytheiii]

With the difference in height - I wonder how much sense it makes to keep any of the existing access tower.

Here is my quick photoshop of how a F9 would look on the Shuttle pad, on top of a Shuttle image: (scale should be roughly accurate)

Eliminate the MLP and put the base of the Falcon in the flame trench.

The blast deflector can be removed and a launch stand for the Falcon can be put into place.  The Falcon can even roll to the pad from this direction

http://www.flickr.com/photos/imagined_horizons/4353621241/

Jim, that sound like the Soyuz Launch table system, am I  following right?

[baldusi]

There are no RP-1 lines left on 39A. 39B has part of a line left that runs from the flarestack to the base of the pad slope.

As far as using the LH2 lines for RP-1, I guess you could. They're made of Invar which i imagine is RP-1 compatible. But seems to me to be a waste of some expensive vacuum jacketed lines that could be better used in the future for liquid methane. In my opinion it'd be more worth it to just run new lines. You're going to need to put in tanks and pumps anyways....

H2 is something like 11 % the density or RP-1. Thus, the pressure due to the liquids column is like 10 times greater in the lowest part of the pipes. Also, the diameter would be a lot more than needed, which might have serious implications at the valve and pump interface.

[Lobo]

There are no RP-1 lines left on 39A. 39B has part of a line left that runs from the flarestack to the base of the pad slope.

As far as using the LH2 lines for RP-1, I guess you could. They're made of Invar which i imagine is RP-1 compatible. But seems to me to be a waste of some expensive vacuum jacketed lines that could be better used in the future for liquid methane. In my opinion it'd be more worth it to just run new lines. You're going to need to put in tanks and pumps anyways....

Thanks Patrat.
Like I said, it was worth a try.  But, couldn't you run the RP-1 lines right along the same channels the LH2 lines run, even if the LH2 lines aren't being used currently?
That would then build in the capability for this pad to be modified in the future to launch a methalox powered LV.  Although that could be awhile, and how long would the LH2 lines be viable if not being used?  Although I suppose SpaceX could maintain them just like they would the lines they were currently using. 

Would LCH4 need new tanks and pumps than the existing LH2 ones?

Also, since you have a very unique perspective of one who's worked at the STS pads, and now works on Falcon, could the STS intertank access arms and structures be adequate to access the Falcon intertank area if hte Falcon v1.1 is set down in the flame trench?  What other areas need to be accessed on the pad?
Falcon v1.0 didn't really have any pad access I don't think, unless a guy could climb up the strongback in it's vertical position. 
Other than a crew access arm for a crewed LV, how much pad access would F9/FH need compared to STS?