SpaceX, rapid reuse, and vertical rocket stacking (integration)

[meekGee]

Maybe.

I am not advocating a copy of the Atlas facility, but am saying that the current system is tuned for roughly one-per-month (maybe twice) operations, which is appropriate.

There'd be no point in investing in more infrastructure until flight rates increase by a lot - which as people pointed out won't happen overnight.

But with larger volumes (1/day), I see a vertical facility (not built like the Atlas facility) being able to work faster and cheaper per-unit than a horizontal line.

As you say, rockets coming in from one side, processed, and out the other.   But if you have to potentially pull engines, or dwell on any of the other systems, there's nothing like concurrent access to everything to streamline the process. 

Horizontal, to me, means that there's always conflict in the access, and thus bottlenecks in the processing.


EDIT:  Yes, far to the future, but I don't think 1 Raptor will replace 9 Merlins - it is too small.  And they won't build a rocket with a few engines.  It's 1-or-many, from a reliability standpoint, and having many engines really helps with the landing and reuse.

[Jim]

Maybe.

As you say, rockets coming in from one side, processed, and out the other.   But if you have to potentially pull engines, or dwell on any of the other systems, there's nothing like concurrent access to everything to streamline the process. 

Which all exist in the horizontal method.  The same access used to build the vehicle is available.  Also no cranes needed

Pulling engine is another false argument.  GSE and task easier to horizontal. 

[meekGee]

Maybe.

As you say, rockets coming in from one side, processed, and out the other.   But if you have to potentially pull engines, or dwell on any of the other systems, there's nothing like concurrent access to everything to streamline the process. 

Which all exist in the horizontal method.  The same access used to build the vehicle is available.  Also no cranes needed

Pulling engine is another false argument.  GSE and task easier to horizontal.

Not all.

Concurrent access exists in horizontal flow?  I thought you argued that they'll turn the vehicle to access one engine at a time.  That's not concurrent.

Pulling engines - You were quite adamant that cycle time will be dominated by engine service time, which will be significant.  So pulling/inspecting/servicing.

So if engine operations are time consuming, and you can only access 1/9 of them at a time, you've got a serious bottleneck.  If engine operation dictate your access to the rest of the rocket (since it all rotates together) then it gets worse.

It's ok if you have time to do everything sequentially, but then your processing rate is limited.

---

As an aside, I've worked on a lot of projects involving precision assembly of large and heavy sub-components (e.g. multi-meter optics).  I like vertical mating a lot more when possible. 

[Jcc]

Maybe.

As you say, rockets coming in from one side, processed, and out the other.   But if you have to potentially pull engines, or dwell on any of the other systems, there's nothing like concurrent access to everything to streamline the process. 

Which all exist in the horizontal method.  The same access used to build the vehicle is available.  Also no cranes needed

Pulling engine is another false argument.  GSE and task easier to horizontal.

Not all.

Concurrent access exists in horizontal flow?  I thought you argued that they'll turn the vehicle to access one engine at a time.  That's not concurrent.

Pulling engines - You were quite adamant that cycle time will be dominated by engine service time, which will be significant.  So pulling/inspecting/servicing.

So if engine operations are time consuming, and you can only access 1/9 of them at a time, you've got a serious bottleneck.  If engine operation dictate your access to the rest of the rocket (since it all rotates together) then it gets worse.

It's ok if you have time to do everything sequentially, but then your processing rate is limited.

---

As an aside, I've worked on a lot of projects involving precision assembly of large and heavy sub-components (e.g. multi-meter optics).  I like vertical mating a lot more when possible.

I have a hard time imagining them actually working on all engines simultaneously in a vertical configuration either.

[meekGee]

I have a hard time imagining them actually working on all engines simultaneously in a vertical configuration either.

You don't have to work on all 9 simultaneously.

Imagine even 1 guy, starting to inspect engines.  On engine #2, he has to perform a deeper inspection since he saw something.  On engine #4, he actually has to call someone to escalate it.

If you have simultaneous access to all, then all these things can occur without special scheduling.  If you need to rotate the rocket per each engine, then the guy who has to perform the escalated inspection, when he gets there, of course the rocket is rotated wrong, and so either he has to wait, or everyone else has to stop and re-rotate the rocket.   Your odds of being efficient on each step are really low - only 1-in-8.

And as I said - the other people - taking care of RCS for example - they're all slaved to this problem too.  If the rocket is rotated wrong, they can't work.

The only way to have a managed maintenance cycle is to give up and do everything in sequence.  Start with engine #1, and if you have an issue, then then everything stops until that issue is resolved.   Inefficient, but at least more predictable.

All of this goes away if you can approach any part of the rocket, anytime.

Now, if you have two teams inspecting the engines, you also double your speed right off the bat.

Just like with the NASCAR jack, in rapid reuse time is money, and so you invest in infrastructure.   Rotating the rocket is just a really clever way to save on infrastructure costs when you're only launching once a month.

[Jcc]

I have a hard time imagining them actually working on all engines simultaneously in a vertical configuration either.

You don't have to work on all 9 simultaneously.

Imagine even 1 guy, starting to inspect engines.  On engine #2, he has to perform a deeper inspection since he saw something.  On engine #4, he actually has to call someone to escalate it.

If you have simultaneous access to all, then all these things can occur without special scheduling.  If you need to rotate the rocket per each engine, then the guy who has to perform the escalated inspection, when he gets there, of course the rocket is rotated wrong, and so either he has to wait, or everyone else has to stop and re-rotate the rocket.   Your odds of being efficient are really low - only 1-in-8.

And as I said - the other people - taking care of RCS for example - they're all slaved to this problem too.

The only way to have a managed maintenance cycle is to give up and do everything in sequence.  Start with engine #1, and if you have an issue, then then everything stops until that issue is resolved.   Inefficient, but at least more predictable.

All of this goes away if you can approach any part of the rocket, anytime.

Now, if you have two teams inspecting the engines, you also double your speed right off the bat.

Just like with the NASCAR jack, in rapid reuse time is money, and so you invest in infrastructure.   Rotating the rocket is just a really clever way to save on infrastructure costs when you're only launching once a month.

Ok, but to an extent you could use a scissor lift, scaffolding, ladder, etc., to accesss 2 or 3 engines at once, and likewise the upper portions of the rocket if horizontal.

[meekGee]

Ok, but to an extent you could use a scissor lift, scaffolding, ladder, etc., to accesss 2 or 3 engines at once, and likewise the upper portions of the rocket if horizontal.

Yeah, but you can see where that's going.  Scissor lifts and ladders instead of robust fixturing - not a recipe for incident-free operations. 

In my mind, when the rocket is sitting in the vertical position inside the service area, everything is fixtured so that initial inspection is almost entirely hands-off.    Again - costs more to build, but less to run, and is more reliable.

[Jason1701]

If this helps at all, almost all operations with engine installation and checkouts occurs in a vertical orientation (either with the octaweb at the factory in in McGregor).

[meekGee]

If this helps at all, almost all operations with engine installation and checkouts occurs in a vertical orientation (either with the octaweb at the factory in in McGregor).

Thanks

[Jim]

If this helps at all, almost all operations with engine installation and checkouts occurs in a vertical orientation (either with the octaweb at the factory in in McGregor).

And then

If this helps at all, almost all operations with engine installation and checkouts occurs in a vertical orientation (either with the octaweb at the factory in in McGregor).

Thanks

not applicable to launch site ops. The factory isn't a launch pad with a flame duct with hold downs and umbilicals in the way.

[Jim]

As an aside, I've worked on a lot of projects involving precision assembly of large and heavy sub-components (e.g. multi-meter optics).  I like vertical mating a lot more when possible. 

When the EELVs were designed, all studies pointed to horizontal ops as more efficient, cheaper, safer and quicker.  Atlas only went vertical because of requirements in handling the Centaur. 

That make 3 different organizations launch vehicle organization that prefer horizontal ops.

Edit.  Forgot something.  Soyuz, Proton, N-1, and Energia all are horizontal. 

A later edit for an important omission:   the latest new rocket Antares uses horizontal.

But this all doesn't matter, meekGee thinks he knows better.

[Nilof]

What about using something like this for quick inspection of the vehicle? You'd likely still need some visual inspection, but it certainly looks like something that would be helpful for fast inspection of a recovered stage.

[meekGee]

If this helps at all, almost all operations with engine installation and checkouts occurs in a vertical orientation (either with the octaweb at the factory in in McGregor).

And then

If this helps at all, almost all operations with engine installation and checkouts occurs in a vertical orientation (either with the octaweb at the factory in in McGregor).

Thanks

not applicable to launch site ops. The factory isn't a launch pad with a flame duct with hold downs and umbilicals in the way.

Jim - what flame duct, hold downs, and umbilicals?   We're talking about the fixed re-processing facility, not the launch pad.


As for Jason's comment, it corroborates that it is easier to deal with an engine cluster when the engines are vertical.

You said over and over again that rapid reusability is impossible since even just the work re-processing the engines will take too long.  So this is a significant considerations.

[meekGee]

As an aside, I've worked on a lot of projects involving precision assembly of large and heavy sub-components (e.g. multi-meter optics).  I like vertical mating a lot more when possible. 

When the EELVs were designed, all studies pointed to horizontal ops as more efficient, cheaper, safer and quicker.  Atlas only went vertical because of requirements in handling the Centaur. 

That make 3 different organizations launch vehicle organization that prefer horizontal ops.

Edit.  Forgot something.  Soyuz, Proton, N-1, and Energia all are horizontal. 

A later edit for an important omission:   the latest new rocket Antares uses horizontal.

But this all doesn't matter, meekGee thinks he knows better.

Like I said, horizontal processing makes sense for once-a-month launches, especially of expendable rockets. Since SpaceX doesn't carry legacy baggage, it could go with the system the best fit its needs - which it did.

But once we're talking about near-daily operations, (or anything more than 1/week IMO) then things change.  Time is money, and the investment in infrastructure is warranted.

Therefore those studies, which I agree with, are irrelevant.  It's different answers to too vastly different sets of circumstances.

That's the whole premise of this thread.  I didn't say horizontal processing is more expensive.  I said that for rapid reusability, I think vertical processing will be faster, and less expensive per-launch. (emphasis on faster, since it translates to money)

[Jim]

Therefore those studies, which I agree with, are irrelevant.  It's different answers to too vastly different sets of circumstances.

And how do you know they are wrong?  Have you read them?   It is not too vastly different sets of circumstances.   It is one basic thing: throughput.   And the way to increase it, reduce risks, and increase safety is to eliminate crane lifts, especially at height.  Crane lifts stop all near by work.  Also moving people, parts and tools between levels increase time (stairs and elevators). 

And it is not for once a month launches.  Get that out your head.  It was for around once a week.
Soyuz could do days between launches.

[Jim]

I think vertical processing will be faster, and less expensive

you have nothing relevant to back up that "think"

[meekGee]

Therefore those studies, which I agree with, are irrelevant.  It's different answers to too vastly different sets of circumstances.

And how do you know they are wrong?

... ahem...

.....
And it is not for once a month launches.  Get that out your head.  It was for around once a week.
Soyuz could do days between launches.

We were talking about a vertical hangar for a reusable rocket.  The Soyuz is horizontal, and expendable.

I said before, an expendable arrives horizontally anyway, and does not require the kind of engine processing that a reusable does after a flight.

[Lobo]

how long does it take to cradle, tilt, and untilt IYO?

They have to cradle it somehow for moving, no matter moving horizontal or vertical.

Their declared aim is to go from hangar to launch in one hour. But that seems hard as it includes tanking and the whole launch sequence. But tilting horizontal and back should be less than that. I don't see them moving the vertical stage in that time by even only a few hundred meters.

I think if it can land on its legs, it can be towed on its legs.  You need to attach a dolly to each one, just like they do to skidded helicopters, but that's much simpler than attaching a cradle to an empty unpressurized tank.

It's not a fragile process, there's no alignment necessary etc.   Just one dolly at a time, it can be done pretty much manually by the tow-tractor driver.

The tractor can then move at least as fast as the one pushing your plane back at the airport, which is a good walking speed, and so 3-5 km/h.   If you're 1 km away, you're done in 10-20 minutes.  (and honestly I think you can drive faster...)

If you want to get fancier, you can invest in motorized, individually controlled dollies, and no tractor.

What's the dry mass do the 1st stage?  Can it be helicoptered from where it lands to where it needs to go.  And then just set back down on its legs?

[Jim]

Jim - what flame duct, hold downs, and umbilicals?   We're talking about the fixed re-processing facility, not the launch pad.

That is what the rocket is sitting on.  It is sitting on mobile launch platform in the processing facility.  Don't tell me you are take it to the pad, then lift it on to the launch mount and then hook up all the services.

Also, there are ways to make Spacex ops more effient and eliminate major lift. 
The strongback is on the wrong side.    The vehicle should be sitting on dollies all integrated and then the TEL rolls in with the strongback over top of the vehicle.  The TEL grabs the vehicle off the dollies and rolls to the pad.

[Lobo]

Maybe.

As you say, rockets coming in from one side, processed, and out the other.   But if you have to potentially pull engines, or dwell on any of the other systems, there's nothing like concurrent access to everything to streamline the process. 

Which all exist in the horizontal method.  The same access used to build the vehicle is available.  Also no cranes needed

Pulling engine is another false argument.  GSE and task easier to horizontal.

So they can already access what they need to.  And I think the only vertical consideration if for some payloads that require vertical integration?  And that can be accomplished by encapsulating it vertically in the PLF at a payload integration clean room, and the lifting it on the vertical LV already on the pad and all tested and ready for launch with a crane or gantry or hoist or something...right at the pad?

If I understand previous posts correctly anyway.  So only a crane or perhaps movable gantry would be needed to be added to LC-40 or SLC-4...and everything else would process as is?