Current (Dec 2013, Jan 2014) status of specific SpaceX hardware (esp F9)

[Robotbeat]

I'm starting this thread to figure out where, exactly, the different launch vehicle cores are (including Falcon Heavy, if it shows up, but focusing on Falcon 9 and F9R).

Currently we have:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/09/spacex-falcon-and-dragon-nurseries/
F9-08, F9-09, F9-10, and F9R (i.e. Grasshopper 2) accounted for. They are largely built. Heck, F9-08 is (as far as my righting) probably sitting on the launch pad in Florida right now.

Is anything big at McGregor right now?

Also, include any Dragon capsules, which could help determine the status of the Dragon flights.

Hardware unaccounted for that I think has a pretty good chance of flying by the end of 2014:
-Dragon in-flight abort (I assume this will be a separate core? is there some way they could use the F9R core for this, perhaps after it's finished with its test program? separate thread!)
-F9-11
-F9-12
-F9-13

and:
-Falcon Heavy (bet it'll fly in 2015, not 2014)

Which flight is F9-11, etc? We know F9-08 is Thaicom.

[Lars_J]

Didn't Chris shut down the last thread like this?

[Robotbeat]

As far as we can tell, SPX-5 is at least done with the basic pressure vessel (according to this: http://www.spacex.com/news/2013/09/24/production-spacex ), and even SPX-6 is significantly started, by the end of September 2013 (picture may have been taken earlier). The pad abort Dragon (may be used for the in-flight abort as well??) has its weldment done, too.

I think they can get the 3 CRS Dragons (SpX3,4,5) done in time by the end of the year, and that part should be relatively straight-forward for them with not so many surprises (since they've orbited 4 different Dragons already, 3 of which delivered cargo to ISS and safely returned to Earth). It's all the Falcon 9 cores that's concerning me... I don't know where half of the 6 cores are that I think will launch in 2014, neither have I seen any sign of Falcon Heavy (nor the in-flight abort core).

_{"Concern" is a strong word... There are only so many F9 cores you can fit on the factory floor in one picture, and I bet some of those exist in some form or another already.}

[Robotbeat]

Didn't Chris shut down the last thread like this?

Not that I'm aware of!!! If you mean the McGregor thread, well it went on for quite some time until I think it was locked because of some random internet cat fight. But it helped inform my (correct!) vote of 3 launches in 2013.

It should go without saying, no L2 content in here. I'm an L2 member, so feel free to PM me L2 links if you want, but none of that can be hinted at here without permission.

[Lars_J]

Didn't Chris shut down the last thread like this?

Not that I'm aware of!!! If you mean the McGregor thread, well it went on for quite some time until I think it was locked because of some random internet cat fight. But it helped inform my (correct!) vote of 3 launches in 2013.

No, this was the thread that was quickly locked, similar to yours: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33148

[Chris Bergin]

That other thread was asking about shipping dates and such and commercial companies don't want it being public knowledge when their stages are running around the country (imagine if someone bad started chasing a truck down a freeway or something!), so that was the problem with that other thread.

This thread is ok - and Chris knows the deal with L2 vs public. Also, we're getting on really well with SpaceX lately, so this pretty much gives me an idea for info request for a news article.

Carry on!

[Jcc]

Well, SpaceX says they can produce cores at the rate of 1 per month ( many here seem to doubt that). Look at the evidence, and we see 4 stage 1s lined up in the factory in September, and one of them on the launch pad in December. If they can have 4 in production simultaneously and it takes 4 months to produce them, that is 1 per month. They need to up the tempo to produce the extra stages for FH.

Also, I would expect there to be a few in temporary storage at McGregor, waiting for testing, or waiting to ship to the launch site. If that is not the case yet, they have some catching up to do.

[AncientU]

Do we yet know of other storage locations beyond the four on the floor? Seems that a facility at each launch site that is simply a garage/hanger would free up floor space at Hawthorne.

[Ben the Space Brit]

Is the old Delta-II hanger at CCAFS still being used by SpaceX? I know it isn't long enough for an integrated F9 v.1.1 but maybe you could put a core and a U/S in there separately?

[AncientU]

Is the old Delta-II hanger at CCAFS still being used by SpaceX? I know it isn't long enough for an integrated F9 v.1.1 but maybe you could put a core and a U/S in there separately?

It was mentioned, by Padrat I think, that CCAFS has location(s) for storing a first stage.  As the FH comes on line, the storage for a single launch requires 3x the floor space, and would wipe out the Hawthorne fabrication line if the flow got interrupted at the launch site or McGregor to which the heavy was bound. McGregor could also alleviate the logjam if they had garage/hanger space for a FH plus another core (comparable to the floor space at Hawthorne), but they seem to be processing one at a time. 

For the flow at Hawthorne to reach 24 cores/year (every two weeks, that is) at end of 2014, finished cores must go out the door as soon as they're able.  I'd think each location (McGregor plus each active launch facility) will be required to store cores for next couple launches.

[Joffan]

Do we yet know of other storage locations beyond the four on the floor? Seems that a facility at each launch site that is simply a garage/hanger would free up floor space at Hawthorne.

Just to note that the "four on the floor" were not in storage - they were in production. I'd imagine that McGregor can have at least two cores on site and would be working towards handling 4-5 cores to support FH testing without interrupting F9R flow.

[Jcc]

The facility in Hawthorn is huge, reportedly one of the biggest factories in California. I don't know if it is fully utilized yet, if not, they may have some extra space but it needs to be longer than a stage 1 to store them. Otherwise, I would think that it is cheaper to build a new building in McGregor than in Hawthorn, because they have a lot of land there.

[smoliarm]

The facility in Hawthorn is huge, reportedly one of the biggest factories in California. I don't know if it is fully utilized yet, if not, they may have some extra space but it needs to be longer than a stage 1 to store them. Otherwise, I would think that it is cheaper to build a new building in McGregor than in Hawthorn, because they have a lot of land there.

Moreover, they need new building in McGregor - to assemble FH prior to testing.

[AncientU]

The facility in Hawthorn is huge, reportedly one of the biggest factories in California. I don't know if it is fully utilized yet, if not, they may have some extra space but it needs to be longer than a stage 1 to store them. Otherwise, I would think that it is cheaper to build a new building in McGregor than in Hawthorn, because they have a lot of land there.

Moreover, they need new building in McGregor - to assemble FH prior to testing.

Yes, McGregor would be a good place to add this storage in the near term.  Back to the OP, do we know where any of the cores past F9-08 (Thaicom) and F9R-1 (Grasshopper2) are at the moment?  Has F9-09 been tested at McGregor and is it dedicated to CRS-3 (or Orbcom)?

[LouScheffer]

Is the old Delta-II hanger at CCAFS still being used by SpaceX? I know it isn't long enough for an integrated F9 v.1.1 but maybe you could put a core and a U/S in there separately?

It was mentioned, by Padrat I think, that CCAFS has location(s) for storing a first stage.  As the FH comes on line, the storage for a single launch requires 3x the floor space, and would wipe out the Hawthorne fabrication line if the flow got interrupted at the launch site or McGregor to which the heavy was bound. McGregor could also alleviate the logjam if they had garage/hanger space for a FH plus another core (comparable to the floor space at Hawthorne), but they seem to be processing one at a time. 

For the flow at Hawthorne to reach 24 cores/year (every two weeks, that is) at end of 2014, finished cores must go out the door as soon as they're able.  I'd think each location (McGregor plus each active launch facility) will be required to store cores for next couple launches.

Surely storage for completed cores cannot be a serious constraint.  The local CostCo (a big box store) has about a 100 meter by 150 meter, high ceiling, climate controlled space.  Assuming a core needs 70m x 8m, that's space for at least 16 cores.  In the USA,  hundreds of stores this size each year open every year, and they take only a few months to build.  It's basic civil engineering, about as far from rocket science as it's possible to get.

[AncientU]

Is the old Delta-II hanger at CCAFS still being used by SpaceX? I know it isn't long enough for an integrated F9 v.1.1 but maybe you could put a core and a U/S in there separately?

It was mentioned, by Padrat I think, that CCAFS has location(s) for storing a first stage.  As the FH comes on line, the storage for a single launch requires 3x the floor space, and would wipe out the Hawthorne fabrication line if the flow got interrupted at the launch site or McGregor to which the heavy was bound. McGregor could also alleviate the logjam if they had garage/hanger space for a FH plus another core (comparable to the floor space at Hawthorne), but they seem to be processing one at a time. 

For the flow at Hawthorne to reach 24 cores/year (every two weeks, that is) at end of 2014, finished cores must go out the door as soon as they're able.  I'd think each location (McGregor plus each active launch facility) will be required to store cores for next couple launches.

Surely storage for completed cores cannot be a serious constraint.  The local CostCo (a big box store) has about a 100 meter by 150 meter, high ceiling, climate controlled space.  Assuming a core needs 70m x 8m, that's space for at least 16 cores.  In the USA,  hundreds of stores this size each year open every year, and they take only a few months to build.  It's basic civil engineering, about as far from rocket science as it's possible to get.

This makes total sense... just wondering if/when this flexibility is going to be built.  So far, it seems that each core had a unique payload/mission determined early on -- is this the standard practice in the launch industry? If so, can a single delayed payload or ISS berthing window create a logjam in production of cores, or can a different payload be substituted "late in the game?"  Early-on in F9 v1.1 production, the designated payload approach is obviously needed, but what about when 18+ cores are rolling off the production line?

Sorry for all the questions -- the shift in gears from R&D to full bore production will entail many such pragmatic or downright mundane issues it seems.

[Jcc]

I don't have information about how strictly a particular vehicle serial number is associated with a payload, but they do receive progress payments during the construction of the vehicle, so I can imagine certain customers being sticklers about the vehicle they paid for being used for their payload.

For one thing, as far as I know there is a lot of documentation about the construction of the vehicle (x-rays, test data, lists of serial numbers of component parts) that are likely tracked and may be made available to the customers. If something goes wrong and you have loss of mission, that is the sort of documentation that they have to go through to try to figure out the cause.

If someone with more/better knowledge of this process wants to chime in her, please do.

[bunker9603]

I was wondering if a Roundhouse similar to what is used for the railroads could work for SpaceX? It seems to me like it would take up less room and be a good way to store their cores?

Here is an image of a roundhouse for an example:

http://forum.atlasrr.com/forum/data/Lou%20D/200810895830_roundhouse.jpg

Bigger version:

http://www.kitfoster.com/images/2011-2-24_RoundhouseWeb-Large.jpg

[ChrisWilson68]

Is anything big at McGregor right now?

I'm visiting family in Texas over the holidays, so today I took a pilgrimage out to McGregor.

There was a first stage up on the big tripod today, nothing in the structural test stand, and a free-standing first-stage-like object a ways away.

The free-standing first-stage-like object looked a lot like Grasshopper to me, including the little blunt nose cone on top.  Not far away from it was the big crane we saw in a tweet from Elon.  It's possible it was F9R1 (aka Grasshopper 2), but if so they've fitted it with Grasshopper-like legs.  I know F9R1 was supposed to be in McGregor for some short hops before being sent on to New Mexico.  Maybe they put the old Grasshopper legs on F9R1?  I'm not sure how else they'd be making short hops, since the flight legs don't seem like they'd be useable for short hops (the rocket weighs too much for the legs if the engine can be throttled down enough to land without being shut off).  But, more likely, it's just the old original Grasshopper.  There was no sign of a second Grasshopper-like object.

There were also some big white cylindrical objects around a cluster of structures, but they looked to me more like permanent ground-infrastructure tanks, not components of any rocket.

A couple of years ago when I visited I was able to drive up much closer, but this time I was stopped by a guard posted along the road farther away.  So I could only see things from a distance.

Here are some pics.

[ChrisWilson68]

The free-standing first-stage-like object looked a lot like Grasshopper to me, including the little blunt nose cone on top.  Not far away from it was the big crane we saw in a tweet from Elon.  It's possible it was F9R1 (aka Grasshopper 2), but if so they've fitted it with Grasshopper-like legs.

Actually, after zooming in on the legs in the picture of the Grasshopper-like thing, I'm now less convinced the legs are actually like the original Grasshopper legs.  The picture quality makes it hard to tell (sorry, it was a long way away!), but the legs look more bluish and differently shaped than the old Grasshopper legs.  Maybe this really is F9R-1?